User talk:90/Archive 1

Hey

Keep up your good work!
Diligent Terrier has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

« Diligent Terrier [talk] 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

You're right about that BJU edit. What was I thinking? All the best,John Foxe (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I figured you had put the link back in by accident, judging by your many good edits. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

SoWhy's RfA

I've moved the discussion to the talk page to get any dramah out of the way of the actual RfA. While I realise it isn't my place (since I didn't make the comments) I apologise profusely for any comments by other users mocking your religion as an answer to your oppose; i'm an atheist, and to me this seems kinda counter-productive (rebuking the claims by a user that admins are centrally atheist and that this makes them anti-christian/biased by er... making anti-christian comments? bwuhh?). Ironholds 01:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If I have read your comment correctly then I agree with you. Making anti-Christian comments is not a very effective way for someone to prove that they are not anti-Christian. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, thats how I intended it to be read, heh. Just thought i'd stop in to apologise; not all us godless heathens are rude as well, although SW's RfA doesn't seem to be setting a good example. I understand where your coming from in that open bias automatically makes his decisions in relation to a biased topic suspect, but I trust anyone mature enough to gain the tools is mature enough to steer clear of topics that they feel strongly about. Ironholds 01:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Religion and adminship

Just a simple question from the current RFA... why does the religion or lack of for a given admin play any significance? Any admin or editor who works and edits to advance their religion, religious beliefs (or the opposite!) isn't doing it right--the Wikipedia "rules" and policies come first when on here. I'm just curious why a user's religious views would play a role in whether they should be an admin, or not. For anyone else viewing this--this is an honest question. If it helps, I'm a Christian myself (Byzantine Catholic, by trade). rootology (C)(T) 04:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A true Christian understands that the Bible is the Word of God and that it has authority over all aspects of life, even over Wikipedia. To a true Christian, nothing should ever be placed over the Word of God, and that includes the rules which attempt to govern the use of Wikipedia. As a Christian and a believer in the Word of God, I do not support placing those who oppose Christian beliefs (i.e. atheists) into any position of power, even if it is only power over a website that, in the big scheme of things, isn’t worth much. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Just want to say right up front we're going to have to agree to disagree on some points (I'm of the mindset that Jesus is the most accepting person ever/the ultimate liberal, etc., from that school of thought), so we don't leap on each other depending on how far this conversation may go. This website, though, and any website really, is a private organization--it's not a public resource, such as a government, so just something to think about--such opposes with this rationale will get people leaping down your throats the same as if someone opposed for a person's general political beliefs ("I'm a fascist libertarian!", or whatever). Why? Just because what you or are I believe is supposed to be completely separate from what we do here. That's why people always say that if you're a good editor you can have the most absurd, off the wall viewpoints, and no one could ever tell from your edits ("I'm a fascist libertarian reformed Satanist who believes that sex with underage animals is a God-given right, and I also hate Whites, but from my edits you'll never know--only from my user box!"). rootology (C)(T) 13:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That truly is a sickening view of the World. As a Christian, I know God made us all equal, you should too. I suggest you withdraw from conversation in the RfA because I'm spotting some serious WP:COI issues. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

While your thinking is right in alignment with what is required for Wikipedia membership, your wording may not be the most helpful by calling Andrew's views sickening, Cyc... rootology (C)(T) 13:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't you classify racism, sexism or homophobia as a sicking view of the world Rootology? — Realist² 14:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Your remarks give scandal to the heathen, and help give us Christians a bad name; makes witness and evangelism a lot harder. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC) (a devoutly Christian admin)

Simple question

Reagrding this:

"Regarding the userbox: By insulting religion, he indirectly insults the followers of religion as well. Maybe it isn’t a personal attack per se, but an attack on a large group of people is just as bad. In fact, one would think that attacking a large group of people would be worse than only attacking one person.:"

Now I would like to point out a few of your user boxes. Let's apply your logic to them one at a time.

• Pro life - Apparently you are attacking those that support pro choice (which is a staggering number of people).

• "evolution is a false theory and Creation is right." - here you are attacking anyone that does believe in evolution.

• "This user believes that Marriage should be between one Man and one Woman."

Here you are attacking the entire gay community I guess.

The question is how are your user boxes ok if you feel that way regarding the other user box? Landon1980 (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My userboxes are not unbiblical. As I have said already, the Word of God is the final authority on what is right and what is wrong. Pro-life is right, pro-choice is wrong. Creationism is right, evolution is wrong. Marriage is between one man and one woman and there is nothing the homosexuals can do to change it. Attacking a large group of people without merit is wrong. If anyone feels attacked by something that comes from the Word of God then it is their own fault. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But it is only your opinion that the bible is infallible. Wikipedia is not run by a christian cabal, and as a private enterprise is not expected to follow any religious laws. I support your right to oppose with good, logical reasoning, not this dead-end "i'm right, anyone who disagrees with me is wrong and thats the end of it" bullshit. I sincerely hope despite my earlier support for your freedom to express yourself that the closing 'crat discounts your vote completely.Ironholds 00:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not my opinion, it is the truth. You don’t have to answer to me, but you will have to answer to God someday. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "'crat discounts your vote completely." That is a given I'd think, at least I'm not aware of any incompetent crats. Landon1980 (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If the bureaucrat discounts my vote, he or she will have to discount a whole lot of support votes too. If a vote is wrong because it is based on the truth, how much more worse it must be if it is not based on the truth! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been a Christian my entire life, and I must say that I'm embarrassed to see a fellow Christian act like you. You are an insult to true Christians. This is a world encyclopedia, people of all race, color, religion, etc. comprise this project and are to be treated equally. Looks like you are the only one here letting your beliefs get in the way of rational thinking and fairness. You just need to stay away from the RFA process entirely, you lack the competence to voice an opinion. Landon1980 (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Real Christianity is rational. If you really believe what you just said then you are not a real Christian. You are a fake. Someone who does not believe the Word of God and act like it is not competent enough to do anything but burn in hell (see Matthew 7:21-23). I hope that you are not one of those people and that you will reconsider what you have just said. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I do believe the word of God, in it's entirety even. True Christians do not judge others and act like people are out to get us for no reason. Do you honestly think there are admins out there that base their decisions on the editor's religion? If so will you show me an example of this? If you are going to continue editing here you need to understand that we judge people only by their contributions. How can you possibly in the same sentence oppose someone for their religion (or lack of) because they wouldn't be fair to you for yours? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? If you want people to respect our religion why not respect theirs? Our job is to lead people to God, not drive them away. Seeing people act like you did on that RFA scares a lot of people away from Christianity. Do you not understand that other people feel just as strong about their religion as we do ours? To them they are right and we are wrong? Landon1980 (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that people feel strongly about their religion. After all, I am one of those people. But here is what you do not seem to understand: If you believe that Christianity is the one true religion (and you have stated that you do), then there is no room for acceptance of other religions. The Bible tells us that Jesus is the only way. Those who do not believe in Him are going to hell. We cannot water down the truth by being accepting of everyone. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that we need to go out and kill people who do not agree with us or any of the other nonsense that people attach to Christianity. I am saying that we cannot yield to their wrong opinions in the name of “acceptance.” I do not think that every administrator is “out to get us.” But I do think that someone who is not a Christian is unstable in all his ways. If you really believe in the Bible then you should too. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that then you're entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia. Somebody who believes that everyone other than a select few is going to burn in hell has no place on an encyclopedia that runs regardless of creed or colour. I advise you to head over to conservapedia toot sweet. Ironholds 02:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that I do not fit in very well on Wikipedia. And I would not fit in very well on Conservapedia either because they are not nearly as conservative as I am. But that does not change the fact that most people are not Christians and that, yes, unless they repent, they will burn in hell. As a side note, I do not understand all this talk about Wikipedia being for everyone, regardless of creed or color. Have I ever said anything about people of a certain color going to hell? I think not! I know a lot of Christians and, believe it or not, some of them are white, some of them are black, and some of them are in between. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

By "creed or colour" I meant that WP is for everyone, I wasn't calling you a racist (just an everything else-ist). Ironholds 03:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the "where to go" bit; I can't tell you to leave, but neither can I see you helpfully contributing to a project involving *gasp* atheists *gasp* and others. Conservapedia might not be conservative enough, but it's definitely a more appropriate place for you than this. Ironholds 03:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI

I have started a post at ANI regarding your recent comments. — Realist² 03:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you expect them to do? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully block your account. — Realist² 03:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If they have any sense of fairness or equality (and they claim they do) then you will also find yourself blocked soon. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm doomed to a life in hell, so I don't have much going for me. — Realist² 03:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, using petty sarcasm always helps to make one’s point, doesn’t it? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You mean as opposed to, say, hateful generalisations and oversimplifications like the abortion loving atheists who support senseless murder? Everyme 11:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That was not any more a generalization than the comment which I was responding to, the one that said that religious people are all in favor of senselessly killing those who do not agree with them. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the exact statement was not "religious people are all in favor of senselessly killing those who do not agree with them" but rather "they believe in an imaginary man in the sky who supports senseless murder of people with differing opinions". There's a not-so-subtle difference there. I agree that both of you guys' comments were unusefully antagonising large groups of people: your response just as much and just as unnecessarily as his initial remarks. He has struck his original comment, maybe you want to follow up on that by removing striking your own unacceptable remark as well? Everyme 12:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not a coward. I stand by what I said and I will not retract it. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You know, striking "the abortion loving atheists who support senseless murder" wouldn't make you a coward. But not seeing how it is utterly unacceptable hatespeech makes you look really stupid and meanspirited. Everyme 13:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It is not hatred. The killing of another human being (which is what abortion is, whether you like it or not) is hatred. I can’t help it if people are offended by or scared of the truth. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a more or less predominantly Christian POV that abortion constitutes killing in all instances. It's even farther from "The Truth" to say that all atheists are pro-choice/anti-life or however you prefer to label it. You are against abortion, and you have every right to that belief. But you cannot say that all atheists "love abortion". It's (a) incorrect, and (b) it constitutes hatespeech precisely because by doing so you deliberately (and wrongly!) attach a label which you consider very pejorative, to put it mildly, to that group. Everyme 14:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of Christians enjoy killing people too. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone enjoys killing people then they are not a Christian. They are a false prophet. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Andrew, comments such as the one highlighted above ("abortion loving atheists who support senseless murder" are wholly unacceptable on Wikipedia. Further comments of this kind will see you blocked. Note I have issued a similar warning to Jimmi Hugh (talk · contribs), whose preceding comments were equally stupid, inflammatory, and inappropriate. fish&karate 12:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for issuing warnings to both parties involved. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Please

Please refrain from insulting the beliefs of others and preaching how others are going to burn in hell at the hands of your all-merciful God. Even if God told you the truth, you do not have to preach it Wikipedia. "Thou shall love thy neighbor as thou love thyself." Or did you chose to ignore that part of your Almighty Truth? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of Christians are evil hatemongers. There has been more evil, more mass murder conducted in the name of Christianity than is possible to tabulate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Crosby, Stills, and Nash: "Too many people have lied in the name of Christ for anyone to head the call; too many people have died in the name of Christ and I can't believe it all." Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The one caveat to this discussion is that no one religion has any monopoly on crimes against humanity. The problem is not necessarily the religion itself, it's using the religion as justification for those crimes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

How dare you tell me to stop insulting the beliefs of others by insulting my beliefs. If you want to throw the Bible in my face, you ought to read it first. You don’t have a clue what you’re saying. We are told to love our neighbor as ourselves, not to accept their heathen beliefs. There is a difference. You call me a hate monger, yet there is nothing but hatred spewing out of your mouths. We are also told to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. That includes Wikipedia. Please stop talking about things you know nothing about. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually used to be a Christian, and have read and analyzed the Bible for school and in Sunday School as a kid. Calling others "Abortion loving atheists" is not loving anyone. One can be civil and respectful of other's beliefs and not insulting them and preaching divine hellfire down upon them without accepting the beliefs. You are told to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth; where in the Gospel does it say, "Amen I say to you, if there is someone you disagree with, smite them, and hate them, and cast down insults and threats of damnation upon them and act like a better-than-thou snob to them"? If you can find that (and I'll be looking, too) I will replace my userpage with a picture of a hat that says "DUH" on it. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I have not hated you. I have not cast hellfire down your throat. I am a sinner just like you are, the difference is that I acknowledge it and let God forgive me. I simply told the truth. It is possible to love your neighbor while also telling them the truth. In fact, attempting to convince someone to repent of their sins (thus allowing God to save their soul) is a form of love. Sometimes the truth offends people. It offended me the first time I heard it too. But, by the grace of God, I came to accept it and love it. I hope you will too. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was an atheist for awhile, but I gave it up. No holidays! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was holding back for a while, but then I found out that Christmas is a US federal holiday! Hurray for lack of separation of church and state! Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Christmas has been declared by the courts to be a "folk holiday", which is true. It was originally a pagan holiday, a "winter holiday", celebrating the winter solstice. The Roman church, which had no idea what date Jesus was actually born on, assigned the winter solstice to be Jesus' birthday, as the annual "rebirth" of the sun was a good metaphor. The winter holiday has remained a mix of the profound and the profane. I have to admit that I cringe when I hear religious carols being played in shopping malls. I like to listen to religious carols - but not in that secular environment - i.e. for the purpose of selling material things that we mostly don't need. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's evident you know nothing about science, since evolution is an observable fact. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is more scientific proof for the Biblical account of creation than there is for evolution. Most scientists just choose to ignore it because that would require them to admit that they were wrong, to confess their sins, and to live in a way that is becoming of a Christian. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The physical evidence supports evolution. It is creationists who are afraid to admit that they're wrong. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but the Bible says it, so it's automatically true. Logic is so-Enlightenment era. Show me the scientific evidence you have that a man in the sky said a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and and the universe was created 6,000 years ago. (All of those early hominids who lived 7,000 years ago just rolled over in their graves, thinking, "Fuck, I missed the cutoff for historical acceptance by just a thousand measly years!) Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I know a devout Christian who's also a scientist, and I asked him about this seeming contradiction once. He said, "Evolution is the way God works." And that answer also works. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The proof is in the Bible. It has never been effectively proven wrong. Evolution, however, has. If someone believes in evolution, they are not a devout Christian. Even a non-Christian should understand that. The Bible directly denies evolution, so if someone believes in evolution, they do not believe in the Bible. Maybe if you had ever read the Bible, instead of throwing a few cliché quotes down my throat, you would understand that. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Evolution has been proven wrong? Really? Since when? Did the aliens knock me out for that long? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Cubs are favored to win the National League pennant, so it's possible that you went to sleep like always, but woke up in a parallel universe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Using the Bible, to prove that the Bible is right, does not work. Scientists are always open to new evidence. A couple of centuries ago, when scientists began actually observing the world objectively, instead of assuming creationism as a basis, they came to realize that creationism is a fairy tale. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no way for a Christian and a non-Christian to effectively debate unless the non-Christian allows God to soften his hardened heart. So far you have not, so there is no point in continuing this debate. It is God whom you are sinning against, not me. I hope that one day you will repent, but that time does not seem to have come yet. I’m sorry you are unable to see reason. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

From the words you choose, it sounds like it is you that has the hardened heart. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

However, to paraphrase Yogi Berra, if you won't debate with us, we can't stop you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone, stop

Andrew, I'm sorry some people are getting on you for being an outspoken Christian. Everyone--just stop, OK? Lets let it end for now.

Andrew--please refrain from proselytizing or spreading the Word here, if possible? It is not helpful towards creating an absolutely neutral encyclopedia (neutrality on religious topics, as well). I know you disagree that Wikipedia rules can trump Bibilical rules, but please don't go down that path of argument--as soon as you try to put religious views over the site's core rules, especially in actual articles (if you did that! not saying you have) you'd end up on a short road to not editing anymore.

Everyone, please just lay off, and stop debating religion. It's not helpful. rootology (C)(T) 00:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling other editors abortion loving mass murderers isn't helpful either. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither is this entire discussion. Please just stop. rootology (C)(T) 00:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

All right. I’ll stop talking (er, typing). But if someone starts jumping down my throat again, I will respond. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the views expressed by AK are so far off the map, that I've concluded he's just funnin' us. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What part of "stop" do you not understand? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Erik, Bugs, stop baiting Andrew on his talk page. If you don't have anything productive to say, don't say anything. Andrew, thank you for not rising to the bait. fish&karate 06:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh brother, the irony is amazing. I refer you all to this thread where Baseball Bugs got most upset because I made a comment to Kelly. Interestingly, he accused me of baiting the editor. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

And darn right he was, that comment you left on Kelly's talk page was absolutely counterproductive and you knew it when you hit save. Ok, Andrew, I guess this has to be the end of this weird episode then, when other editors start recounting their own and each others' wrongdoings. Anyway, sorry for any unuseful distress I may have caused. Regards, Everyme 13:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

I have taken the liberty of archiving Andrew Kelly's talk page, because y'all are bickering, many of you uncivilly. Since this is Andrew's talk page, he should feel free to revert my action, or not, as he chooses. Everyone: let it go. The previous incivility has been reprimanded and is resolved. Any new incivility will be subject to administrator community attention.--Tznkai (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that archiving is a good idea. Thank you. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Why You Edited My Page

Andrew - Thank you for editing my talk page; it was more than warranted. I apologize for not getting back to you sooner, but work kept me away from wiki for awhile - Jjt14 (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AFC

Hi, thanks for your help at Articles for Creation. I wonder if I might make a suggestion. If you could add the class to the WPAFC banner on the talk page it saves time later. For example {{WPAFC|class=redirect}} classifies it as a redirect page. More information can be found at {{WPAFC}}. Best regards, MSGJ 07:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'll do that. Thanks for the reminder. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 08:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Coords

Please don't continue the removal of the coords from articles: their inclusion in all three places has long been supported by the cities wikiproject, and two editors' comments on one project's talk page are definitely insufficient consensus for overturning another project's support. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I ran a test run because it was requested here. I was not aware that there had been any discussions. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not complaining against you; it's not like bot operators are required to know everything that's going on in every part of Wikipedia :-) I've done as requested and posted my reply to the person that put forward the bot request, so if you feel like reading all day long, you can see the various related discussions. By the way: it's good that you thought to remove the EL header for Mapits where there were no other ELs; some time ago this was done (the links were later restored), but nobody thought to remove the headers, and (if consensus goes for removing the links) it will be much better to be without EL headers to have empty sections. Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving me a message. I'm just going to stay completely out of this debate as it doesn't really matter to me which way the decision goes. As far as the external links go, I have seen some empty sections before and found them annoying, so I thought I would go ahead and remove them. Sorry if any of my comments came across as rude, I certainly didn't mean for them to! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Roe v Wade

Just read it, for crying out loud. It is a non-issue. It's a speculation about law, it is WP:OR. If there was any documentation on such a speculation, such would be WP:FRINGE. It is uncited, and as such can be deleted at any time per WP:CITE, although I don't usually do that. I don't usually delete without explanation either, although that is not required. This was just too obvious; I didn't expect objection, let alone reversion. Please revert your revert. Anarchangel (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the fringe page you directed me to, "All significant views should be represented fairly and without bias, in proportion to their prominence." One of the major arguments against abortion is that is it unconstitutional. A huge number of people believe this. Unless you are pushing a pro-abortion point of view, I cannot see any reason to remove this statement from the article. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

future vs. update

Why didn't you replace the future elections tag with the needs to be updated tag? Then at least we'd know which have been done and which haven't. Flatterworld (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea any such tag existed. My watchlist has gone insane with people updating these pages, so I can't imagine there are too many which haven't been updated by now. Sorry about that, I'll pay more attention if I go removing tags again. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have gone back and added {{update}} to the articles which do not appear to have been updated yet. They should now be in the category Wikipedia articles in need of updating. Again, I am sorry for the inconvenience I caused. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

So do you read Genesis literally and believe the world to be made in 6 days of 24 hrs? Gabr-el 04:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I'm afraid I don't understand what that has to do with anything, though. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh lol, Hi, I'm just curious. May I ask, what convinces you to take the 6 days literally, as in 6 x24 hrs? I say this because in Hebrew, "Yoma" can mean day or period. Gabr-el 06:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I take the six day creation literally because that is how it is given in the Word of God. We are told that God rested on the seventh day (Genesis 2:2). And later we are told that this is the reason for the weekly Sabbath (Exodus 20:11). If God had created the world over several eras then why would He tell us to rest on the seventh day for that very reason?

When people start trying to "interpret" the Bible, it opens the door for all kind of abominations. If we can't believe the Bible when it tells us that God made the world in six days, why should we believe it when it tells us that homosexuality is an abomination? Or abortion? Or lying, cheating, stealing, or whatever else someone decides they want to use their "interpretation" of the Bible to justify?

Here is my basic point: we have to take the Word of God at face value. If a word can mean several things, we must read it in context. It is my belief that, when read in context, the Bible makes it clear that the world was created in six days. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe in Real Presence? I mean, Jesus does say "This is my body, this is my blood". Furthermore, Jesus says in John "for my flesh truly is food and my blood truly is drink". Gabr-el 20:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry it is taking me a while to get back to you. I plan to answer your question in full, but I don't have time today. The short answer is that I do not believe in Real Presence in the sense that the bread and wine are converted into the Body of Christ. But I do believe that, when taken in faith, Christ is present among those taking the bread and wine. Scriptural proofs coming soon... --Andrew Kelly (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats ok. As you can see, I've drawn us into a debate, and I hope you will accept, as you seem to be doing - I await your response eagerly.Gabr-el 01:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

All right, here we go. I do not believe in Real Presence in the sense that the bread and the wine are converted into the Christ’s body. We can see that just by looking at them. But I do believe that when communion is taken in faith, Christ is among those who partake of His Table. The Westminster Confession is a helpful, yet certainly not infallible, tool in helping us understand the Bible. Chapter XXIX, Section V. says: “The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to Him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.”

1 Corinthians 11:24-26 says, “And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” This passage describes the initiation of the Lord’s Supper. Jesus says, “as often as you eat this bread,” not “as often as you eat my flesh.”

1 Corinthians 10:16 says, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” It does not say that we are eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ, it says that the bread and wine are the communion of the body and blood of Christ.

And, finally, Luke 24:6 says “He is not here, but is risen.”

--Andrew Kelly (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Good points. Obviously, my argument would be to challenge such an interpretation.

For Luke 24:6, I think the interpretation is important here. "He is not here, but is risen". We cannot say that this denies the presence of Christ for the Eucharist. There are two reasons why I would like to say this. First of all, I would like to take a look at the context. What happens after Luke 24:6? Jesus Christ appears to them again, on the road to Emmaus. Therefore, Christ is in fact here. The text of Luke 24:6 says the Lord is risen so as to say that Jesus Christ is not here in his tomb. This is confirmed by the fact that they see Jesus Christ a little later in the same Chapter on the road to Emmaus. Thus, this passage cannot deny be used to deny the presence of Christ, because Christ appears a little later. Furthermore, he is not here must be taken into context. He is not here may mean many things. Do you suppose that Luke meant that he is not here in the Bread and Wine? Unlikely. They are visiting his tomb. They merely expect to see him there (in the tomb). But, in the words of Luke, "he is not here (the tomb), but risen".

Jesus says, "as often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup". But this cannot be said to deny the existence of Jesus Christ in the bread. Thus, what I am arguing for in 1 Corinthians 11:24-26 is the meaning of the words "this bread". Could this bread mean the flesh of Christ? Is there anywhere else where Christ speaks of his flesh as being the bread? Yes, in John 6:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." Jesus Christ says that his flesh is the living bread. Thus, everytime one speaks of the bread, one actually speaks of the flesh of Christ, no? Jesus Christ clarifies this for us. He says explictly, "This bread is my flesh".

I ask that we take a thorough examination of the above passage. Lets analyze it into two parts that it comes in:

1) Jesus says that he is the living bread, that its from heaven and that if anyone wants eternal life, one must eat it.

2) He reveals that this bread is his flesh.

For 1), Jesus says that his bread is living. Thus, it can't be lifeless. Its a living bread. Now, one might argue that by living, Jesus meant that the bread gives life, rather than the bread itself being alive. However, that would not be such a literal interpretation. He says that the bread is living. Furthermore, even if the bread is giving life, that does not deny the bread itself having life in the first place. After all, what gives life must have life in itself. Thus, for the bread of heaven to give us life, it must have life. A bread that is full of life would point to flesh - which is alive.

For 2), Jesus says that his bread is his flesh and that he gives for the life of the world. How does he give it? In two ways that are ultimately one. The Last Supper and the Crucifixion. He dies on the cross for the life of the world. Thus, we can put two and two together, and see that the bread he gives is his flesh and that the flesh is given on the cross. Thus, the bread must be the flesh. The only thing that is given for the life of the world is Jesus' body and blood and the very life of them. He gives this all up, as he is beaten and scourged, his blood poured and as he dies on the cross.

For 1 Corinthians 10:16, Paul says that we partake in the communion of the blood of Christ and the communion of the body of Christ. The word communion comes from the Latin "communio". This is where we derive our word "community" from. It means "to share". Thus, you have actually quoted a passage that supports real presence. Paul is basically saying, "do we not share in the blood and body of Christ?" But lets not stop there, lets look at the Greek word. After all, the Corinthians spoke Greek, and so did our excellent Apostles Paul. The Greek word for communion is κοινωνία - which means "fellowship". Thus, Paul says "do we not partake in the fellowship of the blood and body of Christ?" I am curious as to why you think these words make a difference. I mean, you seem convinced that to have a fellowship or sharing with the blood of Christ is somehow contradicting real presence. But take a look at the word communion - "fellowship, sharing". And you will see that Paul is saying that we are sharing or having a fellowship(which again means to share or unite with) the body and blood of Christ.

I too am enjoying this debate, and I hoe you will respond. By the way, I will watch your talk page , so I know when you have responded. Respectfully, Gabr-el 17:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some things that I am absolutely sure about. Someone can debate with me till the cows come home and I will never change my mind. Some of these things include the existence of God, Jesus as our Savior, and abortion is murder (and therefore a sin). But Real Presence, or lack thereof, is not one of those things. While I don’t think that the Roman Catholic version of Real Presence is correct, I see this debate as a conversation with a Christian, not an argument with a heathen.

That being said, I still do not believe that Christ is present in the bread and wine. I think He is present among the believers. I am not an expert on the subject, and I am defiantly planning to do some more reading on it. But I would refer you to an article by theologian Douglas Wilson in which he briefly addresses this issue. In this article, Wilson says, “If Christ is present there, then should we not do what we would all do if Christ were there? Wherever Christ is, Christ should be adored. But Jesus did not tell us to watch and adore. He told us to take and eat, take and drink.”

You broke John 6:51 into two parts. In the article I mentioned above, Wilson provides an answer to part one. He says, “To take the elements of bread and wine, and separate them from the sacramental action, the sacramental participles, is a mistake of the first order. It is to remove an animated thing from the animating principle, thereby killing it, and then worshipping it as though it were alive by itself.” I hope you will read the entire article to see where Wilson is coming from when he says this.

Now for part two. Jesus gave Himself on the cross so that we might have life. That much we agree on. But we obviously have different understandings of what Jesus meant when He said that He was the bread of heaven. To quote commentator David Guzik, “Jesus spoke in a figure of speech. The metaphor of eating and drinking was common in Jesus’ day, and pointed to a taking within one’s innermost being.” This seems to make sense when read in context.

I think that the “communion” in 1 Corinthians 10:16 is referring to the fact that we are united with Christ. The best I can do here is point you to a snippet of Matthew Henry's commentary that I find helpful.

After further study, it seems as if I did quote Luke 24:6 out of context. I found it quoted in the footnotes of a document on the subject. Perhaps I am missing the original author’s point, but it does seem to be out of place.

One of the things I like about talking with other Christians is that it often causes me to put more thought into something that I had not previously put a lot of thought into. And Real Presence is one of those things. I come from a Protestant background and you seem to come from a Roman Catholic background. Obviously we are going to have our differences, and I am glad that we are able to talk about and debate them openly. I realize that this response is not all that it should be, but that is because I am not as knowledgeable as I should be. I spent a good deal of my life in a non-denominational church that didn’t seem to know what it believed, so I am rather new to this whole “actually caring enough to know what you believe” thing. But I’m working on it!

For now, Andrew Kelly (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, don't get me wrong. Catholics see Protestants as their fellow Christians. We both believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, conquered death, rose from the dead, gave his life for the world and forgiveness of sins. We could go on and on about our similarities and far more than our differences. It may be unfair for me to respond if you feel you need more time to familiarize yourself with your Reformed Christian teaching. Do you wish for me to respond now or later when you have got a better understanding of your own background? I will however defend one point, if you will. Yes, I am an Eastern Catholic (of the Chaldean Catholic Church), but I did not separate the bread and the wine. See, as I believe the flesh to be the bread and the blood to be the wine, then where there is flesh, there is blood, right? Lets take a quick look and brief laughter at Shakespeare's play, Merchant of Venice. There, Shylock the merchant is unable to carve out of his client's body a pound of flesh, for he also risks taking a drop of blood - by which he is not entitled to thanks to a loophole! Anyways, the point is, if one has flesh, one has blood in the flesh, right? Therefore, if my belief in real presence is correct, (if its correct, not saying it is) then it would be acceptable for me to speak only of the bread alone, for the bread is the flesh and where there is flesh there is also blood. Another way to understand why I am not separating the Offering - have you ever tried to cut out a piece of flesh without taking a drop of blood?

I broke John 6:51 into two parts but I did it to analyze it - I didn't actually separate the mention of Christ's blood/wine from his bread/flesh. Gabr-el 00:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You cite David Guzik and that he says that Jesus was using a figure of speech - but then you are no longer interpreting the Bible literally.

Anyways, that's just defending my points. Let me know if you want to go for more, or if you want some time to gather more information. God bless, Gabr-el 00:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to respond, I certainaly wouldn't mind. I think I can defend most points of the reformed faith rather well because I actually know what I believe. But communion has always been a source of confusion for me. It is tempting to just settle for the reformed view, but I realize that it is not an option to have blind faith without understanding the biblical priciples behind it. So I will continue reading and working through this. I suppose our conversation has to draw to a close. I quite enjoyed this chat. It is nice to know that there are at least a few Christians on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to crossing paths again! Until next time, Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Jesus prays to Our Heavenly Father, "May they be one (Christians?!), just as you are one in me and I am one in You". Let me know when you wish to resume. Until then, God bless us all. Gabr-el 05:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul spam

Can you please explain why you are spamming user talk pages about Ron Paul ?? Ron Paul is not a featured article and can't be nominated at WP:FAR, in fact, isn't nominated at FAR, and if it was, since I have nothing to do with the article, it's unclear why you are delivering FAR messages to dozens of users. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

After another user nominated the article, I followed the instructions and notified all users who had made a significant number of edits to Ron Paul. I later realized that it had been nominated at the wrong place. I decided not to remove the messages because users would still get the "new messages" message, and it could cause more confusion if they didn't actually have a message. I was so eager to get involved in getting the article to FA status that I didn't realize it was nominated in the wrong place. I apologize for contributing to the confusion. Please let me know if there is anything I need to do to help clean this up. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Baldwin and the Political Cesspool

Andrew Kelly, why did you delete my edits to the Chuck Baldwin article? I never claimed that Baldwin referred to himself as "pro-White". My edits specifically concerned the Political Cesspool radio show, which in the article was merely described as "conservative populist" (another term they use to describe themselves). Mentioning the "conservative populist" quote, but not the "pro-White" quote, is an example of cherry picking quotes to make the Cesspool show look less controversial than it really is. I never claimed that Baldwin referred to himself as "pro-White", I was merely adding the Political Cesspool's description of their OWN racial philosophy to the article to add some balance. The article's portrayal of the Cesspool had previously been "whitewashed" (no pun intended). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean to whitewash the article. Because this was mentioned in the same paragraph as Chuck Baldwin Live, I thought it was referring to that radio show. I will look into the Political Cesspool and revert my revert if necessary. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to reverting the article. I understand where you're coming from now. The Political Cesspool is completely racist. I thought you were talking about Chuck Baldwin Live. Again, I apologize for my ignorance. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.99.104.234 (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Request For Rollback

Hiya. I've fulfilled your request. Please see WP:RBK or ask me if you need any help with the tool. Please remember to use it only for obvious vandalism or reverting your own edits when a more expansive edit summary is not needed. Happy editing! Pedro :  Chat  22:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Munch!

Unschool (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Peter Hitchens

I added a well known fact, what was wrong with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.9.122 (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe where you're from he is a "cunt" and a "cock," but where I'm from he's a well known and respected journalist. In all seriousness, please refrain from vandalizing Wikipedia just because you don't like someone. It's a rather immature thing to do. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Date links

You should have a go at winning User:Greg L's Sewer cover barnstar if you enjoy reading date articles. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 22:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that sounds like an interesting thing to do! I usually skim the date articles, but maybe I'll take the challenge if I ever need to kill a lot of time. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Coord bot

Based off of the mostly final note here I have a request for you. Would you be able to code up something to do the mentioned. If you can, when the template from the ELs is removed it shoud be checked that the coords are in Infobox Settlement or similar, and if in the settlement infobox make sure |coordinates_display = inline,title is used. Thanks! §hep • ^Talk 21:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The only automatic program I know how to use is AWB. This would involve a lot more than just removing the template so I don't think AWB would be up to the task unless a custom module was used, and I don't know how to code one of those. Maybe someone could write a php script to do this? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll pop into BOTREQ. Thanks, §hep • ^Talk 05:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed link

I fixed the link to the abortion debate, and the bot came by and "unfixed" it :P Thanks though :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so that's the problem. I didn't realize the list was maintained by a bot. Oh well, folks know how to get there even if the link is broken. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI strikeout

I struck the comments you made on the Talk:Abortion debate page, since I see you have a strong COI in this matter. I left the !vote stand, just the comments.

If you feel this was in error, feel free to drop me a line here or on my talk page. Thanks. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Award

Thanks, Andrew, for the barnstar - it's very kind of you. And it's good to meet someone on WP who uses his real name (I assume it's your REAL name!) rather than a pseudonym behind which to hide. Best wishes, Peter. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

PS And thanks for all the repetitive work you've done on the church articles. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's my real name. I used to hide behind a pseudonym but I changed to my real name for more accountability. Cheers! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Mrweb2010

I would appreciate it if you did not amend the changes made by myself. The added resources are official representatives of New Zealand, providing information related to the specific articles, which I support, no further actions required regarding this matter. Mrweb2010 (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The links in question have been removed by multiple editors as linkspam. Please use the talk pages of the articles to discuss the addition of your links if you still wish to add them. Thanks! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Profane User Name

"Hell" is not profane, end of story.Hell Hawk (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not know who is accusing me of editing anything but this a public facility in which many users use the same wifi connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.78.246 (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there! Sorry if you got a warning that does not apply to you. We use software that tracks edits by IP addresses so if you are on a shared WiFi connection then you will see warnings meant for other people on the connection. Not a perfect system, but it’s what we’ve got :). Cheers! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 07:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You've beaten me to the revert about fifty times this evening, and thank you for reverting vandalism from my user page. :) Trusilver 03:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Check your talk page :) --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

AWB Request

Hello, I replied to your response over at AWB talk. In short, thanks! Novaseminary (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Susan118

Hi, Someone is posting personal attacks on Susan118. When I attempted to remove them your bot prohibited it.

Sup? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.226.208 (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I am missing something here, but it appears as if you vandalized the user page in question two times (one, two). In the first edit you mention that you removed a homophobic attack. I cannot find such an attack. Please let me know if I am mistaken. Thanks! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

WikiThanks

Thank you for helping with the small AWB "saavy" to "savvy" project! It is an extra good thing I asked and you responded because I might have "corrected" some user comments. --Grandpa jlc (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Seal of Fairmont, North Carolina.png

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Crabtree Valley Mall logo.jpg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Conservatism

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – Lionel (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. Right now I don't spend very much time on Wikipedia, but if I start editing more in the future then I might join a couple Wikiprojects. WP Conservatism would likely be one, especially so I could help expand coverage of Austrian Economics. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)