User talk:Andrew c/archive16

Misoprostol

No, it wasn't on my watchlist, but it looks like it will be interesting to work on. I agree the recent edits give disproportionate weight to rare complications. I found a what seems to be a good source [1] addressing the controversy, and will try to work on that section of the article in the next few days. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion

Hello. Yes I would like to get File:Painter's algorithm.psp.bz2 temporarily undeleted. The reason I wrote there was no reason was because the log [2] didn't mention it, like it does on other deleted files. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello, I've noticed vandalism by anonymous IP 79.100.182.202 in the article about FK Baku. Could you please do something about it. --NovaSkola (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The user has been warned. If the disruption continues, please warn again, and if it continues more, you can report at WP:AIV. Also, the page could be semi-protected if necessary as well, see WP:RPP. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference Desk Question

Hey, I don't know if someone has already answered your question about the creature on the reference desk, but it's called a brittle star.CalamusFortis 04:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Andrew c. You have new messages at Nja247's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nja²⁴⁷ 11:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Codex Vaticanus

I am looking for somebody who can copyedit the article "Codex Vaticanus". Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

re:spam warning

I understand your concerns. I had given instructions to my collaborators to add a link to Wikipedia ONLY when we add (and we will do it) original material to WIKIPEDIA, so contributing to its growth as we wish to do. Sorry if this rule was not strictly followed. Is it fine if we act this way?--Gabriele Boccaccini (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You are perfectly right, considering your current knowledge of the project. I take your criticism as a genuine desire to know more. Our project started only 2 weeks ago (!) but is based on 20 years of research and there are more than 100 international University professors involved, from America, Europe, and Israel. What I am currently doing with my collaborators at the University of Michigan is to prepare the framework (so-to-speak) that will be filled with the information presently collected in a database with more than 4000 entries (most of which do not even exist in Wikipedia). In other words, we are now simply building the scheleton of the entries (basic information, links, biblio). Flesh and blood will come soon, don't worry! and it is all original material of which Wikipedia will also take advantage. This is the reason I had given instruction to my collaborators NOT to add links in other websites (sorry somebody did) and - contrary to what you thought - we do NOT seek (and do not need) too much publicity at this stage, bacause we are not ready yet. We haven't even started to put online all information we have. So far, what you see, is only the skeletron of a building under construction. Be patient and you will see soon the painted walls, the carpet, the furniture and the decorations. We are (and we will remain) a very small, highly specialized, scholarly website, but we are filling a ground not covered by anybody else. Does it make sense? Thanks for your interest. Best.--Gabriele Boccaccini (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Images in St. Johns River

Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) indicated you took the permissions email I sent about two images in St. Johns River that I obtained GFDL permission to use: File:St_Johns_River_basin_map.png and File:Floridan_aquifer_illustration.jpg. I have discussed my confusion with Ruhrfisch here.

I would like to get clarification on what was insufficient with what I sent through email, and I would like Ruhrfisch to see this. If possible, can you use my talk page or the talk page of the St. Johns River article?

I have used the same method to get permissions for dozens of images for FAs. I perhaps skipped a step in my correspondence about the St. Johns River Water Management District: I did not edit the email chain to seem as if the media representative for SJRWMD agreed as concisely as what is usually apparent. I have done that before: used the GFDL release statement and added the owner of the copyright's name and contact information beneath it. In this instance, the entire email chain is apparent and the statement was not precisely edited to appear as if it was from Ms. Hickenlooper. However, she did see the GFDL release and she did agree to it.

Your clarification is appreciated. If I decide to nominate it for GA or FA these image problems need to be resolved before nomination. --Moni3 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

File:2001child2.JPG

Thanks so much for your note, I would definitely like to write proper fair use rationales for each instance the image is used - and would really appreciate your help doing so! I'm willing to do whatever it takes! Dreadstar ☥ 21:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent information, thanks! I'll read over WP:FURG and start composing a new rationale for each article tonight. I'll put it on the image's talk page first, and hopefully you can review it and let me know if it's the right direction to go in. Thanks again for your help! Dreadstar ☥ 21:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've started putting together the elements to what I'm hoping would be an acceptable rationale, could you take a quick look here and see if it's going in the right direction? My first detailed rationale and it's like writing a book! If you happen to know of a similiar image that has a really good rationale, I'd like to look at it to see what I'm shooting for....thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 17:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You're unfair

Why the hell don't you criticize the other people who "war" with me about "edit wars"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.213.117 (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This Admin reverted one of my edits (see pomo below) so I checked his edits. They showed him to be very fair! Remember it is not easy to tell Sockpuppet from good faith user, friend from foe, or to tell a genuine grievance from trolling. I would suggest that in future that you avoid phrases like, " Why the hell don't you " and be more respectful.

Happy Editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Harvey Milk in Dress Navy 1954.jpg

Can you also check this file? The original uploader said an OTRS is somewhere. Hekerui (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed somewhere. It has been about 48 hours since I resent the email about the other Milk image. If it gets deleted by a bot, I'm going to upload it again immediately. If you don't see the email in OTRS, I can send it directly to Ruhrfisch. Since the integrity of an FA is at stake here, I am requesting the courtesy of a reply, either it was received or it was not. --Moni3 (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added the ticket number to that image, since it was approved on 10/14/09 along with 2 other images which already have the same ticket number attached. Not sure why this one was missing the ticket number. I read the correspondences, and it seems a little fishy/not by the books, but an agent did approve it, so I'm not trying to stir anything else up (that I haven't already, sorry Moni3). An even though there is a 16 day backlog, I've jumped the queue for the re-sent e-mail sent 2 days ago. I'm just waiting for confirmation from the copyright holder. Thanks for your patience. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Definately not porno. how about contemp

Porn? in the Gospel? Ret.Prof (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that some sort of joke? I guess it's funny. If not, my comment, verbatim, was definately not pomo. how about contemp. "pomo" is short for "post modern", the phrase you inaccurately introduced into the article. Hope this clears that up. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry! "pomo" looked like "porno" on my screen. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC) PS See My Post Modern Link [3] This was the sense I was using it. Also, definately is spelled definitely. Happy Editing!

Safe to ask questions about images?

Andrew, can I ask you frankly about some images without fear that they'll be subjected undue questioning and even IfD? Just that I asked another admin a similar question last year, and the image was promptly deleted, and I was thanked for calling it to their attention. There are three photos on an article I've been working on, and am planning on taking to FAC next week, that include art (in a very broad sense of the term) put up by a U.S. state. I understand that, while works of the federal government are public domain, those of states aren't necessarily. However, I'm not exactly sure these could be copyrighted if this state so desired. The photos themselves are PD, its just I need to know if there needs to be some sort of fair use template because of the subject. So, is it safe to ask you about these, or is there some other wise editor whose council I might seek?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 22:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:MCQ is a noticeboard just for that. I'd be glad to check them out as well. Virtually all FAC's images are subject to scrutiny, especially NFC. You are correct that most works of state government are not in the public domain like federal US work. I am not familiar with all the different states, but Florida has some PD laws as well. Also, if the work is old (especially pre-1923), there is a good chance the copyright has expired. Anyway, if you are unclear of the copyright status, then you'll need to assume it is still copyrighted, and would thus need a fair use rationale, as you suggest. If I where you, I'd just post the image names to WP:MCQ and ask the users to help you figure out the copyright, and if they are copyright, start working on fair use rationales. Alternatively, I'd be glad to check them out personally, but I may not know the answer. Anyway, good luck to you and your FAC! -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm still not reassured, but I asked my question on MCQ as you suggested. However I used as my example a different image that happens to be in the same situation. I don't like this predisposition to assume all objects are copyrighted unless specified, I think that leads so some fairly irrational arguments here on Wikipedia. Thanks for your suggestion, and maybe you can help calm my fears.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 19:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"..if we listed every book on the HJ"

That argument doesn't quite work when there is a limited amount of books on the HJ that have existing articles on Wikipedia. Also, was it really necessary to remove it from every article I placed it on? That just looked like you had a problem with the article itself, or my attempt at de-orphaning it, rather than it being "inappopriate for see also". Surely the link is relevant and appropriate for at least one of the articles I placed it on. And related links that don't appear in the main text is exactly "what see also is for". Anyways, regardless, the book probably doesn't meet GNG anyway. -- œ^™ 01:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding links to some obscure book in the see also section is a poor way to de-orphan an article. You could try citing the book, or otherwise adding content from the book to those articles, if appropriate. When researching any of those topics, I strongly feel it is not appropriate to single out that one book as a "see also", when there are scores of better known, higher quality books on the topic (by actual scholars, not journalists). And then, if we started listing all those more notable books in the see also section as well, it'd become bloated. Again, I'd encourage you not to give undue weight to obscure books that you don't even believe meet GNG by singling them out in see also section. Seemed like "internal linkspam" to me, clear cut. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. I usually do try to make a much better effort when de-orphaning, and try to avoid the non-notable, useless crap. I don't usually go with the see also route when de-orphaning and usually try to expand an article if I can, but I admit I got lazy with that one. Thanks for the reply. -- œ^™ 03:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Confused

what exactly did i do? - 173.50.198.187 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.198.187 (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

ALSO CONFUSED

1987?

I made no such revision (1987) to any page. Please check your information and get back to me on my talk page so that I can continue to contribute to Wikipedia in accordance with the rules. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

STILL CONFUSED AND A LITTLE BIT MIFFED

Sir, I did not even HAVE A COMPUTER in 1987, nor did I have the time nor inclination to use the Internet (WAS THERE EVEN AN INTERNET IN 1987?). I have NO idea what you are talking about and, instead of stating to me, ". . . if you are not the person . . . " I would have preferred that you made the neccesary inquiries to see how long I have had this IP address before sending this message. I hope that you will correct any misconceptions that you may have created by this message. Thank you Mugginsx (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OOPS - Now I sound foolish - you said this happened two years ago. Well IT STILL WAS NOT ME. I did not even know about the Wikipedia website at that time. I guess we BOTH overreacted. I would not "vandalize" anyone's website and would get pretty upset if someone did it to me. (Now that I think about it, someone did vandalize something I did, but it was corrected back to what I originally added into the site). I have made additions to the Earl of Clare website which have all been based on very old and reliable sources (medieval chroniclers) and none have been refuted thus far. Anyway, let us both be good Wikipedia contributors and hope everyone else is the same. Fair enough? Mugginsx (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

I have visited some of your websites and I particulary enjoyed Early Christianity. It was most interesting. I also very much enjoyed your illustrations. Alas, I seem to have only research talent and that in a very limited field. Thank you for this site on Early Christianity. Mugginsx (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Points of sail image tweaking

Hi, I was wondering whether you might modify one of your pictures; namely File:Points of sail.svg At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Points_of_sail#Gallery, I placed some of my points of sail for other sail ships. The tweaking would include:

1. adding 2 additional arrows to indicate the wind as a "barrier" rather than being directional from 1 point
2. wind direction changed to the bottom; this allows the use of the l/r indications to indicate position to wind better
3. coarses are given colors based on thrust/heel force
4. heel force is mentioned
5. wind impact to boat is shown
6. circle is added and degrees are placed at image

I have a modified file based on your initial image to allow you to quicker modify the image; will mail it when you provide mail adress. Also, if you wish to modify my points of sail images, note that the image for rotor ships is still incorrect, seems that coriolis force doesn't revert direction depending on hemisphere; will replace this image soon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 10:33, 16 September 2009

I'd be glad to make a new image based on my old diagram and your suggestions. However, I don't believe I understand them all. #1 can easily be accomplished. I can also do #2, though I don't know what l/r indications are (and on boats, don't we have p/s - port, starboard) #3 I'm not sure about. I get the idea based on your illustration File:Points of sail for rotorship.JPG, but I don't know the actual forces. #4, same as before. Do you have a chart or diagram for heel force? I don't know what #5 means. #6 can easily be done as well, though I am not that fond of an enclosed circle myself because it may seem to limit the travel of a vessel, which can easily sail outside of the circle. Anyway, I'd gladly start working on a new version with what you said above. If you clarify the points I am confused about, I'd appreciate it! Thanks for the suggestions. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

l/r indications are as stated in image, a reference to left and right; indeed port and starboard are other terms but I don't wish to use them as they complicate matters for non-sailors and are only a term for ships (and not other vehicles). Also, the terms don't add extra meaning, ...

Regarding heel force charts, no I don't have them but what Stephen Thorpe said about it (namely that eg the coarse at 90° is the best one for any boat, ... I analysed the info and made a map, it doesn't really matter how much it is, the color simply indicates the best coarse incorporating both the heel force and the moment of force to the sails as for the circle, indeed I thought about the point you raised priorly, however if the circle isn't made too thick and eg in grey, it wouldn't be considered as a "real life barrier", also it makes image more precise and could allow quick filling of the areas with colors (eg using the fill tool) wind impact to the boat is shown by a green color on the boat images (take a close look), it explains a bit why l/r is used (eg - and +'s are also sometimes used and one could also use another distinction eg by stating the position from the wind's perspective rather than the boat, ... Having taken them all into account, I believe my option is the best and gives the most useful info to the sailor (eg stating 90°l immediatelly indicates that one receives wind from the left and is thus sailing towards the right from the boats perspective; way more suitable eg than stating things eg from the wind's perspective

A specific I forgot to mention is also the following; perhaps the image is best given a new name (eg points of sail for single sail sailboats); this as the colors would be different eg for square rigged sails (latter are eg not yellow for downwind but green, and yellow-red for other areas); and perhaps a additional points of sail is best made for eg skysails/kite ships and spinnaker-only ships (which don't actually exist, but simplify matters as they allow a sailor to see the good coarses when he incorporates one; mentioning them on each individual type of ship will be too hard to understand and makes us edit each points of sail image again).

KVDP (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Andrew,

Forgot to mention another thing; the main image on the points of sail would be : Image:Points of sail for single sail, double masted sailboats .I recently went over the sailing for dummies book again and here, 2 masts with sails are shown for the schematic, this is more accurate (most common sailboats have only but 1 mast but 2 sails which work like a 2 masted sailboat with 1 sail per mast. In a schematic it is best to simply draw 2 masts with 1 sail. The reason why this is done (besides being just more accurate) is also because it makes a noticable difference at 180° to the wind (running); here sails are placed "goosewinged", so the efficiency and method is similar to a square rigged ship at this coarse. With a image you have now (1 sail, 1 mast) this isn't possible and so the image if faulty in a way. This is btw also the reason why I myself got a little confused at first on this. I mentioned before that you could make a square rigged sailboat points of sail; with this suggestion this would not be so required; instead you could best make this image first and not bother about the other image any time soon. KVDP (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

where

I don't have a gripe. I just don't see a it listed on WP:RM. When I asked you to please point it out to me-- I ment only that. Please tell me where on the page it is... like what day is it under? If it is not listed we can list it but I want to read it if it is there.^{Carlaude:Talk} 02:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please excuse me. The way you phrased it, and the way you quoted me, I thought you were taking issue with me calling WP:RM a formal process. RM isn't a requirement of moves, but it is a structured venue to advertise move discussion. I know with the Catholic Church move, some people took issue that it wasn't listed there, and others claimed it wasn't necessary, and so on. So when I saw what you wrote, I thought you were attacking my characterization of WP:RM. But apparently, I'm paranoid, so you have to please excuse me my misgivings :Þ My point was that nothing was ever listed at RM, and it didn't appear like anyone was defending the move after it was reverted, so I figured we should just move along. I don't think we need to start a RM discussion or anything if we don't have anyone actively defending the original move, or proposing a new one. If you feel the article needs a new title, though, please be my guest to start discussing those options (and feel free to list it at WP:RM as well!) Hope that clears things up, and sorry about the confusion. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Gospel Question

You asked a question on Biblical Canon talk page in 2006. Sorry I'v come to Wikipedia rather late (Dec '08). I have placed my comment where you asked it. I hope this helps.

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Austin J40 OTRS

You have new messages

Hello, Andrew c. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template.    File:Ico specie.png

 Chzz  ►  17:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Hey! I just undid my reversion- because now that you mention it, I probably shouldn't have reverted your edit- I agree, I wasn't thinking straight. Anyway, I was only vaguely familiar with that flow chart... seems interesting though. I'll add a section on the disambiguation page for the discussion. Thanks! :) --Rockstone (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's extremely in good faith of you. Thanks. While you were doing that, I was trying to rephrase the section myself. Maybe I myself was a bit rash. I'd welcome you to restore the earlier version or simply ask me to revert myself as well if you disagree with my change. I'll join you on the talk page! -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the current version you just made is probably the best. It is not ambiguous in the least. I'll still add a section titled Catholic vs. Roman Catholic just in case any editor aside from us wants to discuss it. --Rockstone (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of helmets

Your immediate deletion of File:UtahHelmet.png was improperly under F7, which requires that the fair use purpose be "clearly invalid." A helmet with a team's logo on it is not clearly invalid and falls well short of the example given ("photograph of a mascot"). You should have given editors the proper seven days to rectify the fair-use licensing. Since a helmet falls within another fair use rationale — a sports team uniform — it would have only taken an editor a minute to fix the problem. Please be more judicious in your deletions in the future and follow proper Wikipedia guidelines. Ute in DC (talk) 17:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the uniform copyright tag is more for something like File:Big10-Uniform-UI.PNG. It seems redundant to have the exact same logo right next to each other, except one is in situ on a helmet. How much more information do we get by seeing the exact same logo on a generic helmet? Seems to fail NFCC #8. Having the entire uniform seems much more informative, because not only can it transmit helmet color and logo placement, but also transmit home and away color combination, and other stylistic elements unique to that team's uniform. I understand that your preferred team doesn't have a full uniform image on it's page yet. So perhaps that needs to be worked on for that specific article. But I stand by my deletions (thought I do take your criticism under advisement). I also would like to point out this is stemming partially from a noticeboard discussion. See this discussion, and feel free to participate there. Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you see the value of seeing the helmet next to the logo, Wikipedia requires consensus before you take action. Inclusion of the helmet image is built into template:NCAAFootballSchool and others do see the value. If you would like to build consensus against inclusion of the helmet, you are free to do so, but you are not free to act unilaterally in enforcing your opinion. I plan on participating in the discussion you linked, but I stand by my position that you acted erroneously in deleting helmet images immediately. Ute in DC (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that perhaps arguing against the merit of the helmets doesn't help me. I'll simply ask you to refer to WP:F7. It states Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted immediately. I think the example is perfect. Just replace "mascot" with "helmet". While there may be a perfectly fine copyright tag for mascots and helmets, that isn't mentioned anywhere in WP:F7. It simply states that such images may be deleted immediately. No stipulation that I should try to find the correct copyright tag. I believe, 100%, that I acted in accordance with those speedy deletion guidelines, and hopefully, now that you have reviewed them, you can agree ;) Perhaps that phrasing on the speedy page should be changed? That's another issue though. Anyway, thanks for bringing your concerns to my attention. I'd gladly undelete any files that you believe are fixable. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Most helmets — and the helmet in question — have an image of the logo of the team, while a mascot does not. So a helmet may not have been a perfect fit for the logo tag, it was not "clearly invalid." Ute in DC (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help & reply with my recent OTRS query about an attempt to verify a musician's Carnegie Hall performance. You were quite right, of course. Perhaps the performance there just can't be admitted to the article until Carnegie publishes their historical database of performances/performers. I have no personal interest here, btw; I don't know the performer and have never even heard any of her recordings. I'm interested in the potential admissability of her Carnegie Hall performance, though, as something of a learning exercise and, of course, because I think it would improve the article if it can be supportably admitted. If you have a moment, I'd welcome your thoughts on the article's talk page as to whether WP:SELFPUB would be acceptable justification in this case for including it. I'm inclined to suspect it would not, but would be interested in the opinion of other editors on that particular point. Thanks again, Ohiostandard (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of St Johns River Water Management District images

Seriously. What the hell?

This is not my problem and not my fault yet you are making it my problem and my fault. A bit of cooperation would be appreciated.

It has been addressed. You have a divergent understanding of image policy. You make this entire process extremely trying. Tell me who to go to over your head, i.e. your supervisor. --Moni3 (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We went through this back then, and you never requested an adequate declaration of consent. Additionally, you forged someones signature/name on a consent declaration. However, back then, I took your concerns under consideration, and asked for review, Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 4#OTRS review request. Fact of the matter is, those images never received an OTRS ticket, and they cannot sit their indefinitely as "pending".

You are welcome to ask for a 2nd review on the OTRS noticeboard. You can also check out Wikipedia:OTRS#Dispute resolution. I'd be glad to post about this for review either on the OTRS wiki and/or the OTRS listserv, but both of those are not public forums, or I could bring it before other agents on IRC (which has a public channel). I am 100% open to scrutiny and review, and welcome it. If I made a mistake, I'd readily admit that. But as of now, I still believe the permission requirements were not met, namely we need a clear statement from the copyright holder that states 1) they swear they are the copyright holder or authorized agent of the copyright holder and 2) they agree to the terms of a specific free license (which is specified BY NAME). Saying we have permission "for your article" seems to restrict where this content can be published, so a definitive statement is needed to make sure they agree to a license, and understand it means 3rd parties may reuse, modify, and possibly profit from these images. We have WP:CONSENT forms for this expressed purpose. Hopefully, this explains why the images were deleted, and what needs to be done to get them restored. Please keep my apprised if you seek other forms of dispute resolution, or would like me to request review in any of those OTRS forums. Sorry this hasn't worked out favorably yet. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. I emailed OTRS again to get someone else to clear this up. --Moni3 (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the initial e-mail was sent in July, and because we have a 10+ day backlog, I figured it would be appropriate in this instance to "bump" your post, especially given that your images were deleted. I posted to the permissions listserv, and asked another volunteer to respond in a timely manner, and explained a bit of the backstory, and the justification for responding to you in front of those other hundred or so tickets. Hopefully, you won't have to wait long for a reply. Thank you for your patience. I've also asked for clarification on the deletion process when it comes to OTRS received for my own personal knowledge (in case my deletion was inappropriate). I appreciate your work here at Wikipedia, and the time and energy you put towards maintaining and improving the site. I sincerely hope your interactions with me, in my role as an OTRS respondent, haven't discouraged you. Hopefully, there will be an amicable resolution shortly. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Categorization problems

Please explain Thank you for posting on my talk, but I have to admit that your message was vague to the point of uselessness. As you can see, "reading up" on categorization is a tall order and it's not clear which guideline about categorizing is broken by my actions. If you'd like to be more specific, I would appreciate any further feedback you have on my talk page. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Not too harsh; I'll take a look at the CfD and see where it goes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

End to a perfect day

I suppose you knew this was coming.

Harvey Milk at 1978 Gay Freedom Day.jpg deleted.

I'm sure you run into editors who don't care what they're uploading is not free. I'm not one of those editors. Dude, I work my goddamn ass off around here in my insignificant articles just trying to follow whatever I can to make them as good as I possibly can. Just take a look at that kind of work necessary to construct and maintain Harvey Milk. Start in the archives, page 7 and keep going. It's a monster. I've got 14 featured articles and they all take an incredible amount of work just to keep them maintained. I admit here, sometimes I'm overwhelmed, but there are not a lot of featured article writers and even fewer editors who understand the kind of effort. Sometimes I feel like all I do is add to content just to have it ripped apart.

So will you let me know when this is going to happen? I thought this was taken care of already. And will you help me out for God's sake? Don't wax on about policy. Tell me exactly verbatim to the word what it is I need to do. Tell me what I need to do to get that image back. I'm admitting here. I'm exhausted with the multi-fronted battles it seems I have to engage in from all sides. I've also had a pretty awful day today. You're helping, I'm sure you think. I'll do what is necessary. Just help me. Please. --Moni3 (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

On 10/09/09, OTRS received an e-mail from the copyright holder/agent stating, in very clear terms that they "did not agree to license this image under the terms of the free license GFDL". With such a definitive statement to the contrary, I could do nothing but delete the image. I apologized to the individual, and told them if they reconsider or want to choose another free license, we can easily undelete the file. However, in this instance, I don't believe there is anything you nor I can do to get the proper permission.

I think this confusion may be stemming from your approach in asking for permission. I understand completely that the process is already confusing enough, and you want to streamline it and make it as easy for the copyright holder as possible. However, I'd ask you to, in the future, not fill out permission declarations for individuals. Point them to WP:CONSENT and ask them to fill it out, including the part about choosing a license. While having the form is not necessary, it leaves nothing up to the imagination. What OTRS agents are looking for is a) a clear statement that the person is the copyright holder of the material (i.e. "I am the copyright holder of X) and b) the name of a specific license for which the content is being released (i.e. "I agree to the terms of the CC-BY free license").

Additionally, I believe it is important to communicate that granting permission also means that 3rd parties can reuse, modify, and possibly commercially use the content (the 3 points found Wikipedia:PERMISSION#For images). In fact, in future requests for permission, you may want to stick closer to the suggested text Wikipedia:PERMISSION#Typical request letter for confirmation. It is my belief that this permission confusion has been coming from the copyright holder not fully understanding what "licensing freely" means. Perhaps, by making the 3 points clear, and asking them to fill out the declaration of consent themselves, this sort of confusion could be avoided.

Again, I apologize that the image got deleted. I wasn't trying to ruin your day, and this is nothing personal. Really. I'm truly sorry this came at a bad time. I understand completely how much work you put towards Wikipedia, and you are an asset to the project. I wish we hadn't gotten off on a bad start. But unfortunately, for this image, I don't think there is much else we can do. They clearly stated they never agreed to the GFDL. I kindly asked them to reconsider, and perhaps choose another free license if that is more acceptable. If they do, I'll be the first to undelete the file. Once again, I am sorry. Please understand I was following the wishes of the copyright holder, and not arbitrary deleting images or making this personal against you or anything horrid like that. Hope this explains things. If there is anything else I can do, or if you have more questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to ask. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of gangs active in the midwest United States

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of gangs active in the midwest United States. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs active in the midwest United States. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

AN/I input requested

Hi there. I was the one who originally raised the sockpuppetry investigation for 69.121.221.174, and you provided the key diffs in that investigation. You also worked to mediate the conflict between that user and Schrandit. However, after conversations with the user, I am reasonably convinced that they are not Spotfixer and that it is another user on the shared IP. If you have the time, I'd appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#69.121.221.174. Thanks, Awickert (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Snapshot of me 7

I did not look further into it. I was under the impression from talking to other OTRS volunteers that if the image was a home snap-shot, especially one of such low quality, it was allowed, especially as it does a lot for the article. Perhaps it should have been released under a fair use license instead?

Are you on the OTRS IRC channel? Because I have been trying to get onto the thing for 3 weeks now and I've had no luck. If I was able to speak to other OTRS volunteers about this sort of thing I feel as though there would be fewer judgment calls and fewer problems of this nature. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

agrotissa

I am a big fan of this product that's why I made a page on it. It may get deleted if it doesn't get developed enough soon but i did it anyway. If you try googling agrotissa, in either language, there are apparently no images of it anywhere on the internet. this image I took using my low budget microsoft webcam, which i use for my skype, and that's why it's called image of me. thank you! Eugene-elgato (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've just reread your message. No, I was not aware that taking a picture of a logo doesn't transfer copyright to me. But I'm not familiar with all this and followed the instructions as best I could; the option I chose to use as template was simply the one that said to use for when you have taken your own picture. AS a matter of fact, I would say that I do indeed have copyright of that image itself; i'm not talking about the logo. if i had copyright of the logo i would have a proper complete image of it. but this is my own picture i took myself, so presumably i have copyright of that.Eugene-elgato (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, i dont mind it being retagged as the fair use if that is the most suitable, definitely. unfortunately only today i have moved location, leaving behind this souvenir tin of condensed milk and even my webcam...so i dont know what to suggest. it's a possibility someone else is gona be doing some editing, from greece, cos i tagged it as being greece cuisine stub, so we'll seeEugene-elgato (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

PS please may you do the honors in changing its tag; im not sure which one exactly is most appropriate. thanks Eugene-elgato (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's excellent. Thank you very much. I feel a little embarassed, cos when I first started the article an administrator deleted it and I had a go at him, and he reinstated it. But it's a bit lame, because really there's not a lot to the article. Anyway, we'll see if anyone on the stubs section has any more input ! Eugene-elgato (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Gheorghe Zamfir

Hi Andrew. Re this, I suppose an OTRS email trumps anything else. However, I'd like to take a moment to explain my rationale for the revert that apparently led to the OTRS ticket. In ascending order of importance, the factors I considered were:

1. the change was made by an unregistered editor with zero history (i.e., no track record of legitimate edits). In itself, this was no problem; however,
2. a whois search on the site they changed it to, gheorghezamfir.eu, comes back to an individual (not Zamfir himself) whose relationship to the subject could not be determined, whereas a check on the earlier site, gheorghe-zamfir.com, returns Michow Concerts & Management GmbH, a legitimate company whose web site lists the artist in question (see this and this ).
3. the new site, gheorghezamfir.eu, says nothing about bookings or management (strange for an official site) and is chock full of spelling and grammatical errors. Not only did this scream "fansite" to me, but it seemed inappropriate for a Wikipedia article to link to—official or not. The old site has well-written content that clearly is of use to someone doing research on the subject. (Also, the old site is rendered in good old-fashioned html and loads up quickly, whereas the new site opens with huge Flash files that make accessibility a possible problem for some users.)

I'll certainly trust your judgment, but I wanted to note my skepticism. Rivertorch (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Saint honoraries article naming policy

Andrew, I am concerned that there are multiple apostle article Talk page groups that have decided by consensus to ignore the Wiki policy on Saint honoraries article naming policy. Several others "stretched" to reach consensus because it's a Wiki policy. Last time I looked, all but two or three apostles had been renamed to eliminate "Saint." As a matter of both fairness and respect for policy, it doesn't seem right to me for holdouts to be tolerated since the policy exception clause is not appropriate ("known only by..."). I have posted this concern on the Clergy policy page, but no response. I will appreciate your opinion and guidance. Afaprof01 (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I can sympathize with your feelings on this. Unfortunately, I do not know what to do. Thus is how it often goes when discussions are ruled by majority rule votes. We get situations where things are clearly against guidelines and policies, but they still exist because a vocal few like it that way. That said, it appears the saint naming guidelines specifies dropping "saint" unless the individual it is more commonly understood with it (i.e. "Saint Patrick"). I guess those who contributed to your move requests believe "Saint Andrew" and "Saint Peter" are more common (but not for any other of the 12). With a failed RM in the recent history of both those articles, I personally do not know of any other options to take, besides waiting, and hoping for consensus to change sometime in the future. Situations such as this can be frustrating. Not sure if any of this will help you, but if there is anything else I can do, I'd be glad to be of assistance. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Andrew, for such a thoughtful and thorough reply. I think your reply is very prompt. I can't even imagine how you keep up (and put up) with so much. You catch an awful lot of heat that you don't deserve. I wish that were not the case. Afaprof01 (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

IWASWorldWheelchairandAmputeeGames-Men's200m-T42.pdf

Hello, Andrew c. You have new messages at Jacklee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No, no, no

Say what you will. I do not buy it. I was on Miracles, who was there? I was on parables, who was there? I was on Thomas, who was there? You figure it out... And my edits are not bold, just adding referenced text. I do not buy it. History2007 (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't buy it, you don't buy it. I guess it isn't my fault that you don't want to look at my editing history, and how it predates your presence on these articles, and how I have them all watchlisted (and have for years).

I can simply tell you, I am not wikistalking you. We share similar interests when it comes to NT and Jesus related articles. That really isn't unusual. If you believe I have acted in any way in bad faith, please bring it to a corresponding forum for independent review. I take personal misconduct seriously. I'll admit any mistakes, and am completely open to peer scrutiny. Baseless accusations will not be tolerated though.

With that said, I am saddened by your latest revert at Gospel of Thomas. I can say that it is going to be hard to work with someone who is editing in bad faith. Edit warring is never, ever appropriate. You have twice restored controversial material that you added yourself. WP:BRD recommends never doing that. WP:3RR says you cannot do it more than 3 times, or else risk being blocked. As a sign of good faith, please remove that pargraph, join the discussion on talk, and do not restore it until consensus is established. My concerns are relatively minor, but you did a wholesale revert of my efforts to improve your edits. Wikipedia is about working together, not fighting to have your preferred version. I am open to discussion and compromise. Can you say the same for yourself?-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Please comment: Talk:Gospel of Thomas#Third opinion

I agree with History2007 to include "Although called a Gospel" It is not a work in the litary form of a gospel. It does have has something in common with gospels thou-- content. We should add "Although called a 'gospel'..." back in.

I agree with History2007 that "not part of the Bible" is good, but could be better.

I, like Andrew c, also find it problematic to say "Some Christian authors view it..." or to single out the Catholic Church, or to say some other things added.

I propose we say instead:

“ The document is not considered canonical or "Biblical" by any Christian group, and the theological views expressed in it are very different that of the four cannonical Gospels. ”

Cheers. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 07:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No not really. Even if you circumvent the guidlines of WP:BRD, and are avoiding any compromise, this part below is still both new and has no "consensus to stay"... ^{Carlaude:Talk} 23:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

“ It is used by scholars for historical research, but not as part of Liturgy or worship by the majority of Christians. Most Christian authors view it as including material that conflicts with the New Testament. The views expressed in this document show no concern for doctrines such as "God", "original sin", "divinity of Jesus", "atonement", "final judgement" etc. ”

Funnily enough that was the only sentence that [Andrew c] did not have problems with for he said: "I'm ok with the last sentence." History2007 (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am disappointed at your desire, History2007, to dictate what "needs" to stay. Like Andrew, I am not doing any of this in bad faith, and hope we can continue to work together without hard feelings.
• Esp. since Andrew also removed the "last sentence" (and others)-- but also because he only said he was "ok with" the "last sentence," his views cannot be accuratly considered as a positive desire to keep the "last sentence." Without that it still lacks a "consensus to keep." I also point out that the text I quoted, without the consensus to keep, is three sentences long.
• That said-- esp. since his take isn't crystal clear-- still hope we can get Andrew to comment again on his current view. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 16:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I know both History2007 and Carlaude to be part of the Good Guys Club, and want to affirm that AndrewC also qualifies. Please trust that his motives are pure, and that he will work with you, 007. Tnx, Afaprof01 (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

thanks for your gentrle corrective about manners or was it observation(Lumenlitt (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Mediation?

Hello Andrew. I'm back again with two large concerns: Marriage and Creation–evolution controversy‎. Dead ends, both of them, as far as anything conciliatory. Marriage is between two 'individuals', and I'm not allowed to tone down Xian bashing in the C-e controversy. I've never thought about it before, but any percentage in considering formal mediation? Thanks. Afaprof01 (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... looks like Creation–evolution controversy is a case of not enough talk page discussion. You've tried to make your bold edits, and they didn't fly. There has been a little discussion, but there should probably be more to try to hash out a compromise (or give each other a chance to convince the other otherwise). Basic WP:BRD. On the other hand, not sure what I can say about marriage. There has been tons of discussion. The talk page is full of it, going back quite some time. Looks like a case where it is a very controversial topic, and it is hard to define the topic in the first sentence. I've been through that before on abortion. We have archives and archives of talk pages before we reached what we have now. And it isn't perfect, because random editors will still come along and change it, or bring it up on talk, but it has been relatively stable for a couple years now. Not sure what stage the definition of marriage is at, or how long that definition has been there. I am not familiar with the history of the article. Looks like they have hashed together one that is relatively accurate, but may be a bit too open/vague, in order to accompany all the various views later discussed in the article. And it seems like you and a few others feel the definition could be more precise, but not many seem to agree. I don't want to get involved further, but I just thought that maybe a compromise could be mentioning the most common type of marriage further down in the lead (not the first sentence). Anyway, that talk page looks like a mess. Maybe a WP:RFC could help, but I think trying to discuss a compromise, or working on the wording of the first sentence more may help (though it surely may be hard work). I didn't intend to type this much, sorry!-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much, Andrew, for your analysis and sound advice. I appreciate your taking the time. This is VERY helpful! Afaprof01 (talk) 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: There was a sudden voluptuous flareup on Marriage. A Hostile Environment has been created. It has brought all editing to a halt and initiated false accusations from one particular user that I used sockpuppetry to try to win a consensus. Patently false. I deleted his accusation per WP:FA and he restored it with some 'choice' comments. I tried WP:RFC but to no avail. I need to report all of this to a Sysop, so I'm bringing it to your attention. Pls feel free to refer it to another Admin if you need to. Above all, pls advise me. Afaprof01 (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I'm too late. You have been getting good responses at WP:EA and on unnamed user talk pages. The RfC doesn't seem to have much input yet, and the regulars at that article don't seem interested in discussing that topic again, but RfC are supposed to run for a month, so maybe more people will see it and comment in the future. If not, arichnad suggested mediation. Anyway, good luck with all that. And remember you can always take a deep breath, relax, and walk away from the computer if things start heating up. Sometimes if I get upset over a dispute, I may write up exactly what I'm feeling, but save it for later, and once I've cooled off, decide a more appropriate response (most of the time!)-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Great advice, Andrew. You really are one of the good guys! A good heart! Afaprof01 (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Marriage

Hey, we're getting more trouble over on Marriage. An IP adress 140.180.134.143 is a blatantly obvious sock of Ffdsajkl101. Could you help out?Cathardic (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

George Tiller

OK, sorry. It's just that in this case, some right-to-lifers like to deny him his title. It's a way for them to say, in code, "Abortionists are not doctors" or some such libellous shit. SingingZombie (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
• Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Color drawing

		The Minor Barnstar
		Thank you for coloring Erinna newcombi image. Snek01 (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

¡Muchas gracias! -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Ret.Prof (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

Merry Christmas, History2007 (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

For deletion

These two pages Talk:Refugee camp‎, Talk:List of American weightlifters‎ should be deleted. The article Refugee camp was vandalised several times. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

A plea for help

Hi, Merry Christmas!

There is an article on the cultural and historical context for Jesus (really, it is meant to be about how historians reinterpret the Gospels and other parts of the NT based on histrical knowledte - as opposed to reinterpreting history based on the theological claims about Jesus ... does this interest you, in general?)

I have recently come into an edit conflict with another user inb this section (which itself has four subsections I think)[4]. This ias the section accounting for a split between Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity (the idea is, thse two POVs color our view of Jesus today, alothough, ironically, the come right out of the same historical and cultural cauldren that produced Jesus.

I think what we (the article, as much as me and the person I am in conflict with) need above all is "fressh blood" working on the article or at least this section.

My view: The way I see it, this story involves two complicated issues: Christian views about Jesus (is he a great teacher and miraclke worker, or messiah) and about Jewish law (you do/don't have to obsserve it), and the composition of Christians (are they mostly Jews or mostly gentiles? From hat I have read, changes in both these things account for Christianity ceasing to be a Jewish sect and becoming an independent religion.

If this makes sense to you, I'd appreciate your going through the section just to make sur eit is well-read. If yo think it is an inacuarate account of what the sources cited claim, make changes. And moswt important, if you know of important sources that are not draw on here, would you consider giving some time to ading those views you find important?

Second, the other user flagged the last (or second-to last) sub-section as having NPOV problems so when you get to that section could you go over it careflyy to make sure that it is well-wrtitten and again if there are any major, and relevant, views you think are missing, could you add them?

Just doing these thingw would help a lot; I am not trying to hide the facts about the edit conflict, it is just that I think more important than a specific argument between me and another user is just making the article better and I think you might be one person who has read enough to judge what is there. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 02:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

PS if you really want to understand the edit conflict: it is not really clear to me frm talk what the other person objects to - but the edit history shows him primarily removing material, or (once I have restored i) adding different tags and making some minor changes in wording; clearly there is text there that the other editor thinks is wrong. he has alluded to other sources - several of which are new to me, and not cited in the books I have been using - but so far has refused to put their views into the article. If you really want to know what the edit war is over specifically just check the edit history and most recent talk, it will not be hard to figure out and it is all withint the past few days Slrubenstein | Talk 02:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Help move LeRoy Bailey Article to LeRoy Bailey Jr.

Request to move LeRoy Bailey Jr. — his name is LeRoy Bailey Jr. not LeRoy Bailey Sr. there's a difference, two different people.Dc 160 (talk) 07:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If it isn't broke, don't fix it. The Naming Conventions portion of our Manual of Style states, in relation to Junior/Senior: "Using this as a disambiguation technique is not advised, except for those names where the practice is well established." It isn't clear to me that this is the case. The YouTube channel for The First Cathedral doesn't add the "Jr." to his name, but firstcathedral.org sometimes does and sometimes doesn't. His book "A Solid Foundation" does not include "Jr." on the cover. I would say, in light of the MoS's guidance on this issue, there is no need to move this article. That said, you are welcome to make a move request, and see what the community consensus is. If you need help formatting a move request, I can help. Just read the instructions at the top of WP:RM.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, that discrepancy is something we at the Cathedral will have to address at some point seeing that on of his sons and one of his grandchildren have the same name as him. Ironicly, this issue is one that revolves around consistency between Wikipedia and Wikiquote. Which lists him as Archbishop LeRoy Bailey Jr. Additionally what needs to be taken into consideration is how the Archbishop identifies himself, which is by the name LeRoy Bailey Jr. not LeRoy Bailey. On this clip at about the 2 min mark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8_gKFCryJc Dc 160 (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

All I can say is that it isn't clear cut, and therefore I am not willing to assist you in a bold move, and would ask that you go through the normal channels of trying to reach consensus (prefereably, but not required, by WP:RM). I don't get to decide these things personally. If there is community consensus for the move, and you need admin assistance due to move protection, or something already in the new article space, then I'd be glad to help. Good luck! -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

re: German? music video

The group you saw is Deichkind. The song is Ich betäube mich. cheers =] devolver (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy smokes, I can't believe that you knew what I am talking about. That is exactly what I saw years ago. Thanks so much. I can't believe you found my question after it had been archived months ago. Wow. I'm quite amazed. Thanks again.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

VCF Birth Control

Andrew,

I see that you are an administrator for the Contraception section and wanted you to be aware of VCF Contraceptive Film which is the number one spermicide on the market: www.apothecus.com.

This type of contraceptive is not listed under spermicides or directions on proper utilization which would be helpful to couples seeking to learn more about this non-hormonal option: www.apothecus.com/uploads_siteID_12/birth_control.pdf.

I would be happy to send you clinical and/or statistical data if you feel it would be helpful for the page.

Thanks so much for volunteering your time, Nate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Private Jet Charter (talk • contribs) 15:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

your help needed

this is a long argument between just two users. (I made a few commnts to try to steer both towards some path of compromise, but failed.) They are in desperate need of another voice. I hope you can take the time to read and comment or even edit the article. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You had suggested I open an RfC on Creation according to Genesis. You've probably looked, but if you haven't had the chance, please glance at Talk:Creation according to Genesis. Pandora' Box, for sure. How does one identify consensus in a case like this? Where do we go from here? Thanks, ─AFAprof01 (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry fellas. I wish I had the time to get involved, but unfortunately, these issues seem quite extensive (or would require a lot of reading on my part). I'll try to review them over the next week or so, but no promises. Sorry. I do wish you luck.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of Thomas

Hi, I don't want to get into an edit war so would you be able to do anything regarding the removal of the cited statement on Gospel of Thomas which seems to have just been deleted once again? Thanks. --Ari (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I consider that gaming the system. I really really try for a 0RR or 1RR policy for myself. It isn't the end of the world if the article reflects poorly while consensus is being built (or the content is under dispute/discussion).-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)