User talk:Andrew c/archive2

bibleverses

You might be interested in:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Bible
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Gospel of Matthew
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in 1 Esdras
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in 2 Esdras
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in 1 Maccabees
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in 2 Maccabees
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Tobit
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Judith
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Wisdom
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in Ecclesiasticus
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Baruch
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Story of Susanna
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in Bel and the Dragon
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in Second Chronicles
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in the Book of Ezra
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chapters and verses in First Kings

Clinkophonist 19:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think Rich Farnbrough has a long term plan; he wants 36,000 articles, one for each verse. Creating the Matthew redirects is step 1, step 2 is to change them from redirects to articles - no-one will notice as they won't show up in the article creation logs, and there are too many to simply watch. Clinkophonist 20:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Clink the paranoid... Rich Farmbrough 10:19 21 August 2006 (GMT).

Citing to the Bible

As a recent participant in the TfD dicussion on whether {{Bibleverse}} and {{Bibleref}} should be deleted, I wanted to make sure you were aware of the new discussion at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible. The goal of these discussion is to resolve the concerns raised re GFDL, use of an external cite, etc. Additionally, this page should serve as a location for recording research about the different websites that provide online Bible information. Please edit the summary and join the discussion - thx Trödel 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Table of Dates in Sacred Heart

Hi Andrew, I noticed the change you made to the dates for the Sacred Heart. I used the format that now appears in Corpus Christi, Pentecost, Trinity Sunday and possibly other Easter based feasts as well. I was attempting a bit of standardisation. If we have a table in Sacred Heart then it would be good to have the same format in these other articles, or use the format in the other articles in Sacred Heart as I did. I'm also unsure why you removed the earliest and latest possible dates. While such facts are not directly relevant to the christian celebration, they are relevant to the topic as a whole, and they do represent useful content. Regards, Arcturus 22:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - just looked again at your edit. I didn't realise you'd moved the text noted above to a different article. Is there a case for merging the Feast article and the main article - what do you think? Arcturus 23:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: anon vandalism

Yeah, looks like we both reverted vandalism by the same person... and this is what we get? Oh well, I guess that's WikiLife! :-) romarin [talk ] 21:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

HOlA!

This is the first time I've attempted to use another user's talk page, please correct me if I'm messing it up. :) Regarding the page on Biblical Inerrecny.. I wanted to direct you to the discussion page where I have made an entry for each major edition, please feel free to discuss any improper editing I've done there.. however I feel as if I've been presenting the current scholarly view on the subject only to be reverted to your understanding or opinion on it. Don't get me wrong I'm not assuming anything about your thoughts, only making the observation that what you keep replacing my wrigints with is not consistent with the current stances of adherents to biblical inerrency which is what I undestood the purpose of that article to be. If you disagree.. I welcome you to create a page entitled "critism to inerrency" or some such page and make a comment on the article linking the reader to it. So please take a look at the discussion page. I've previously addressed all the issues and would welcome your thoughts in there. Thanks! --DjSamwise 03:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I got your message on the Augustinian hypothesis

I agree with Lost Cesaer that your overhaul was excessive and it unnecessarily removed a lot of good content. I don't think you are acting according to consensus on removing a lot of Wikipedians good content. I stated this in the talk page. ken 02:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Page move at Canon law (Catholic Church)

I question the reason you gave for the unilateral, undiscussed move, see Talk:Canon law (Roman Catholic Church), and I request that you self-revert the page move. Gimmetrow 16:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Andrew,

I see that you are a VCU graduate. I also attended VCU, lived in the Fan on Park, Floyd and Lombardy. I also have a nephew there now working on his BFA in photography. I was and he is a parishioner at Cathedral Parish (Sacred Heart Cathedral). Those were fine days for me and seeing your user page has brought back good memories of the Village Cafe, Carey Street and shows at the Byrd.

It has also reminded me of some of the worst anti-Catholicism I have ever experienced. In my years there the Cathedral was vandalized by the Jack Chick people when they glued hate posters to the front doors and by ACT UP when they spray painted lewd images on the limestone walls on Good Friday night. We also had several cases of Evangelicals interupting the the Eucharistic Prayer during the mass by walking up and down the aisles yelling and holding up Bibles. Personally, my boss once told me to wash my face on Ash Wednesday or get fired. I quit.

You are now part of the campaign to erradicate the name of the Catholic Church on WP. This is a complex issue and I would request that you see this page before you continue with such efforts: CC vs. RCC.

Vaquero100 17:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A formal move request has been posted regarding a page you moved. See Talk:Canon law (Roman Catholic Church)#Page rename for more information. Gimmetrow 15:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew, for the instructions regarding Catholic Encyclopedia article adaptation. These are all things I am currently working on.Vaquero100 00:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Codex

Translation done. You can find it at Codex Bobbiensis. Ask any time. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 06:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I do it for the practice and the Rosetta Barnstar. --OrbitOne ^[Talk|Babel] 16:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther

When you have a mo' you may want to take a look at the Martin Luther page, particularly regarding Catholic issues as noted on the Talk page toward the end. Would value your view on this. The article is being reconsidered totally and I wonder if more substance is needed on the issue I raised. --Mantanmoreland 16:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

AD at Christianity

Regarding this edit [1]: I don't object to your removal of the one instance AD is used, as it is in fact redundant. However, I want you to be ready as a witness in case someone comes along and tries to switch this article to the CE style (it has happened before). Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Kitty May Ellis

Hey, thanks for the note. I was beginning to feel more than a little down. It's been a rough week for AfD closures for me, I guess. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My style in articles

But if I did it all correctly from the beginning. What would you have left to fix? I mean I would feel bad leaving you purposeless :) Wjhonson 22:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Contrarying

Andrew c, it appears that you have been contrarying me for several weeks now (which you have as much as admitted elsewhere). There is nothing to indicate you have any relavant knowledge whatsoever of the Catholic Church yet you appear to have a need to follow my every move with an eraser. Do you have an obsession with me? Is there something you need to get off your chest? By all means explain yourself. Vaquero100 02:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing of negative information on biographies

Greetings Andrew c, please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP to understand why I didn't just merely slap up a {{fact}} tag. Thanks. (→Netscott) 16:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also please see this section of WP:3RR. (→Netscott) 16:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your edits were indeed quite helpful which is why I've not reverted them. My quoting those policies was to explain why I reverted User:Socafan. There are policy which do not oblige editors like myself to have to hunt down a given source for a piece of information in an article (particularly if said editor is already busy elsewhere). I became aware of User:Socafan's editing style relative to not citing sources and reverted accordingly. (→Netscott) 00:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Restorationism

The Restorationism article is in terrible shape. Amongst its many problems is a complete lack of citations. Do you have any online resources that you feel might help in a cleanup of that article? Everything from style and form to grammar needs attention; I'm willing to do a chunk of the work in cleanup, but I don't have the source background to do it right. Anything you can direct me towards would be appreciated. Thanks, -Kevin/Last1in 21:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Kittie May Ellis

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee in regard to the article Kittie May Ellis. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the mediation, and indicate an agreement to mediate within seven days. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kittie May Ellis, and indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wjhonson (talk • contribs) 04:44, 22 July 2006.

Quick Note

I wanted to send a private message thanking you for your patience and time spend responding to me. I understand the strife present in certain divisive articles, especially the one on Jesus. I want to impress that I am, as best I can, wholly interested in being reasonable, subtle, and patient. To note, I have not made any changes at all to the article yet. I merely wish to contribute whatever I can in a constructive and positive way. I genuinely do believe that discourse and mutual respect can allow for differing opinions coexist in the spirit of collegiality and reason. So, I hope that my comments are understood in this light. Lostcaesar 04:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

AD and Manual of Style

Hello. Maybe you are interested in an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Interpretation over the use of AD/CE.--151.47.119.2 00:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

AD/CE thing

However, I am reverting the removal of those edits because it is constant returning 3RR vandalism from an anonymous IP range. This user has constantly unilaterally changed such information in the past, and had claimed that he would stop for a month, but he went against his word. Unfortunately, the range cannot be blocked for any length of time. Ryūlóng 02:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this anonymous editor cannot be put under AGF. He is utilizing his IP range to evade a block, and continue doing the various edits that he was blocked for in the first place. There have been various blocks put on his IP addresses, but he just disconnects and reconnects to a new IP address and continue to undo everything that people have issues with. Ryūlóng 02:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Try Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Panairjdde (2nd) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)"

As well as the conversation centrx had with him on the last IP he used prior to this evening User talk:151.47.87.229. Ryūlóng 02:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

AD edits by anon IP

To clarify the matter, the Manual of Style does not state that AD is not appropriate; the "normally" and similar language used in the style guide is to leave it as a gray area, not to mean that "plain numbers should be used for all years in AD, only except when the events span BC and AD". The bullet point below that "when either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate to just change between them" and its related Arbitration Committee ruling (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Disputes over style issues) have the more relevant guidance. —Centrx→talk • 02:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

RfM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FosterMe (talk • contribs) 19:00, 28 July 2006.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC).

Comment from Vaquero100

Andrew c, I would not dispute your right to edit topics related to the CC. However, your obsession with the subject when you have such limited knowledge of the subject, is indeed perplexing. You seem to have a need to tinker and get your finger prints all over the place without making significant contributions of additional material. May I ask what your motivation is? Vaquero100 18:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Earlier you said you were not contrarying me, but it appears that you are. In fact, you have added the word Roman to close to a hundred articles. I am not going out of my way to make the subtractions but if I am editing an article for other reasons (as in the case of English Reformation) and there is reason to remove "Roman" as was explained in my notes, I will make the changes. Follow my every move if you will, it just shows how obsessed you are with me personally or with Catholicism, which you showed no interest in before July 1. It is also clear that you are not as familiar with Catholic related topics as you ought to be to be spending so much time telling everyone else how it all should be. Vaquero100 18:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not say anything about being ordained, you did. Ordination does not confer either intelligence or knowledge. However, a degree in a topic does, or at least some well selected general reading. You also did not seem to read closely my edits on English Reformation. And you do seem to be following me around, or else by what coincidence do I owe your commentary on my edits regarding Henry, the founder of the Anglican church?

Also, it is not just your Roman additions, it is the protracted debate over Catholic devotions, your trouble with my removal of "Roman" from the English Reformation (which were pre-Reformation references prior to the existence of the term Roman Catholic Church) and this protracted debate over His Holiness. It is just tiring to have educate you (when you always seem to assume I dont know what Im talking about) in order to make even minor edits to WP. Vaquero100 19:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

Maurreen and I had agreed to hold off on putting that template back on the Talk page until we had worked this out. WHjohnson acted on his own putting that there, and I do not agree with how he went about this. Just wanted to let you know. plange 15:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism

Have you not been seeing me talk to you in the comments page? 2nd Piston Honda 18:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who got confused for a second there. I was going to put the discussion there but never got around to it. 2nd Piston Honda 18:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Gate Keeper

As the new self-appointed gate-keeper of all things Catholic (or all things Vaquero100, I'm not sure), I thought I'd better inform you that you missed Panis Angelicus. I was really disappointed that you missed that one because I am particularly proud of it. It is not often at this point in WP to hit on such a major piece of new ground--but I'm trying. Hope it meets with your approval. Vaquero100 03:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Tofutti, etc

hey Andrew -- thanks for the comments. I've been so busy lately that my contributions have mostly been limited to dropping in, reverting a bit of vandalism, and getting back to work -- but I'm having fun. We do seem to share a number of interests -- and though I don't race, I am nearly finished building a new fixie for around town! best, bikeable (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

For fixing the spacing issue on our Biography template! It had me puzzled what was causing it :-) plange 18:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice going on Criterion of embarrassment

See Talk page there for my note. BW, Thomasmeeks 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyedits

Sorry I've been tied up all-day on a series of edits on gay authors. Anyway I've started to look at this article, and reverted some of the more overt preaching. It calls itself the "Christian" view of Jesus which by it's nature is POV, but we can probably only stretch that so far and still remain an encyclopaedia instead of a pulpit. Anyway, I'm on it. Thanks for the heads-up. Wjhonson 05:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Biblical Inerrancy and Catholicism

Several paragraphs of Dei Verbum were included to get the point across as to the PRECISE position of the Catholic Church on the Bible. Your edit makes it appear that the Church holds a position other than the precise position. Maybe it can be paraphrased several years from now, but until then, it should be left there until Catholics understand the official position of the Church so they do not contribute to Biblical inerrant nonsense. If you object to its relevance at this time, please note that about one in six people in the world are Catholic. I do not mean to justify unnecessary additions (the complete document is on the Vatican's website, and I understand your concern about primary sources), but I think you get the point. JBogdan 01:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. That works. I will leave it the way you have it now. JBogdan 14:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

sorry

i'm usually doing four other things at once, and go back and forth while editing...and i seem to make a lot of spelling mistakes i am forever going back to correct... will make concerted effort to combine edits much more economically. thanks for letting me know.Cindery 14:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

you know, i thought you meant this in reference to depo-provera, where i wrote the entire "Ccontroversy" section recently by accretion, with a massive number of edits. when i saw you meant "hormonal contraception" i was like, that was a handful of edits. also, you are the only person who has complained about this. i think it might be easier for some people to follow if the edit/line info and the edit correspond, rather than having to go all the way to talk. i don't plan to make like 40 or 50 edits at once --as with constructing a whole complicated section like depo/controversy, but i don't feel bad about a small flurry, i think it actually makes things clearer/easier to understandCindery 02:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Death and Resurrection of Jesus

Liberal Christianity. —Aiden 23:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, after rereading it, LC fell within the scope of the first sentence anyway. You're right. I reverted myself. —Aiden 23:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Cathedral of the Sacred Heart (Richmond, Virginia)

Hey Andrew c, I noticed that the photo I put up for the Cathedral Parish article has been taken down. As you are a photographer, I was wondering if you might have a photo available for that spot. Vaquero100 01:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I did not realize it was under renovation and was not expecting you to take a new shot--just figured that most VCU art/photography students would have something in their portfolios. I don't think it is urgent. It might be better to shoot in the winter because there are so many trees in the park anyway. Hope all is well. It's been a while.... Vaquero100 02:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Abortion

I know this is belated, but I'd like to take the time to welcome you to WPAbortion, and thank you for your recent contributions toward the project. Good to have you onboard. -Severa (!!!) 13:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sacraments of the Catholic Church

Hi Andrew. Vaquero is a bit of a firebrand who supports the use of Catholic Church over Roman Catholic Church. He is a Catholic priest. I am a Catholic. I also support the use of the term Catholic Church so I sympathise with his position. Having said that, I also understand that for practical reasons in the Wikipedia we use Roman Catholic Church. This has been discussed at length and I support the consensus. If there is any particular point that you want help with let me know.--WikiCats 02:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ealry hymns

You asked some time ago about O Salutaris Hostia, and Tantum Ergo, my personal opinion would be merge and redirect. I would also favour keeping the text of the hymns unless very long. Rich Farmbrough 10:21 21 August 2006 (GMT).

re citations/edits

re citations i_just_haven't_had_time to format them all (if you notice i did format one) so it's not a matter of not doing it it's a matter of when--no one else has to (although editing is collaborative, and just like people correct each other's typos/research errors, they correct each other's citations). calling it "sloppy" and accusing me of making work for other people on purpose sort of implies that everyone who contributes to an article which is later improved by someone else is being "sloppy" and "making work" for them. that's the whole point of wikipedia--collaboratively improving on each others' work. including your rather snippy crits of other peoples' editing (re anonymity, refs) with other comments about the subject and in the general discussion page does appear hostile, whether you intend for it to look that way or not. (whomever anonymous was seems to have been intimidated away.) i'm not convinced at all that your "nitpicking" isn't pov-motivated, based on your response to anonymous regarding the research done on the article (you were adamant that it was thorough/it definitely was not/ the whole article was framed as prochoice/prolife debate, rather than an informative encyclopedia article--it had zero scientific/medical refs). and while we're on the subject of bad citations, my pet peeve is broken links. but if you notice, i don't whine about them, i replace them myself...(furthermore, i like the articles that have in-line links better than footnotes, because you can go straight to the article without an intervening step, although i agree the formatting should be standard/articles should end up with footnotes links, etc). having a temporary link hardly degrades the quality of the article--it holds the link till formatting and can be more convenient). meanwhile i could have formatted ALL the links in the time wasted today addressing what i consider your whining/harassment (and so could have you). Cindery 00:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

re edits--between aug 1-19 no edits were made to mifepristone article (meaning, doing intensive editing over two days hardly strained the serve--no one was editing this article at all). plenty of time for people to respond/contribute--it looks like i not only improved the article but inspired other people to begin contributing/contributing again also. Cindery 00:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

your level of self awareness

while i appreciate that you believe your minor criticisms of other peoples' editing attached at the end of subject discussions in which you disagree with them are not hostile/do not reflect pov-reltaed hostility, it can seem that way. (i do agree with anonymous that the research on this article was substandard, too.) i have seen top-notch editors use anonymous ip--it's irrelevant/implies that you didn't take anonymous seriously/and you claimed this was not subjective but implied your opinion was the standard/it seemed intended to discourage he or she from participating.

you seem to have lost all perspective on the importance of citations and in fact appear extremely emotionally invested in having a conflict about them--your concern is not collaborative, constructive, problem-solving-oriented, or even remotely patient--you seem bent only on harping on it in a very grudging, highly subjective way (which makes me feel like formatting zilch, by the way.) nevertheless, when i have time, i will. i think you should 1) clearly prioritize your gripes--a) make sure a petty technical gripe or opinion is separate from a topic discussion b) be more patient and try to at least seem like you are not zealous to cite people who disagree with you for "petty violations" that are unintentional. Cindery 03:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

undergraduate?

i can't think of a better way to illustrate my point that you "have lost all perspective on citations and in fact appear extremely emotionally invested in having a conflict about them" than to note that you have just left a novel-length tirade on my talk page-- *after* i formatted a significant number of refs...at this point, i think you are being abusive, and you need to find a way to deal with your inappropriate feelings/inappropriate emotional investment other than directing it at me. get a grip. Cindery 16:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Do you believe it would be appropriate to file an RfC against Cindery? She has been uncivil to both you and I. [2] I believe this warrants outside mediation. -Severa (!!!) 23:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never participated in an RfC either. I just know that you need a minimum of two people to file one. I don't want to go throwing rocks at a hornet's nest, but, at the same time, I cannot let CIVIL and NPA infractions like this slide. Because of this, I will be backing away from Wikipedia. Good luck with WPAbortion and related articles in the future. -Severa (!!!) 00:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't. I have weathered users who were far more uncooperative than Cindery. Unfortunately, though, due to health/internet problems, I'm not in ideal problem-solving form. With NAF/instillation abortion, WPAbortion icon issues, and all this all in one week, I kind of feel like I've bitten off more than I can chew. I know that if I jump into Mifepristone now, I'll only succeed in making things worse, as I did yesterday. I still feel that I've somehow made some kind of Wikipedia faux pas — although I'm not really sure what it would have been. RoyBoy should lend insight, particularly given his knowledge of ABC, and, if we need additional input, we could always request it from WikiProject Abortion. -Severa (!!!) 01:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Based on some of your comments (in multiple places), it seems like you hold resentment against me personally for what you see to be the poor state of the Mifepristone article before you arrived. I do not own the article (nor does anyone). I only edited the article 15 times before you arrived, and 9 of them were to rv vandalism. The rest were to reference, fix, and format current event information that was inserted by other editors into the article, plus a major rework of the drug infobox. That's it. Just about every edit of mine had to deal with the recent edits of other editors, not creating or editing the text that was already there. I seriously think you have contributed in a major way to the article, especially in different ways that my 15 contribution. And I seriously appreciate much of your efforts. But please do not blame me for the previous state of the article. An aside: I also take offense at your partisan accusations on my motivations and editing behavior. If there is something you'd like me to address or know, please tell me on my talk page, but I'd urge you to please keep personal speculations about me out of content/policy disputes. Thanks for your time.--Andrew c 21:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)"

your contributions, since i began contributing, have only been recative to me. (i.e., you haven't contributed any research, changed/improved the article by editing any contributions that existed before i began editing.) your quick and frequent contributions to the talk page would indicate that you are concerned with the article...and yet your concern does not seem to be focused on the article, but rather on reacting to me. i think maybe you should try to take an objective look at every contribution you have made to the article since i began contributing--try to do a little outside analysis, as if you were someone else. i.e., i'm not saying you wrote the whole article, i'm saying you're very actively contributing to it...but only reactively, to the talk page--not to flaws in the article and how to improve them. you don't have a collective/collaborative attitude--if you object to something, it's only to edits i made, and you don't improve anything yourself--you bring complaints to the talkpage immediately, and hurl ridiculous accusations if you think you have the flimsiest grounds (plagiarism, for example. i laughed out loud and tried to remind myself that you are a student, not to take the bait.)

your insistence on keeping the PSA=prolife refuted by prochoice APA really seems to me like something you might not have insight into yet. you're obviously not stupid, so your inability to get what a straw man argument is --and how that was set up as one --would seem to involve some other kind of blinder. also your lack of perspective about citation issue, mortality rate--excessive, emotionally invested nitpicking which is not really focused on improving the article, but on being contentious because you think there's a rule you can invoke and use as a weapon towards an opponent. but the rules are not meant to be weapons, and i am not your opponent. (careful again never to conflate your opinion with the rules overconfidently, especially when you're subjectively and emotionally engaged. anyone with a legal education could tell you even laws are living interpretation, ever growing with new case law interpretations...)

i can see--i have read them--that many of the prolife arguments are laughably logically flawed/very ridiculously biased. i can see that many of the abortion pages have been vandalized, and that being prochoice and defending against "idiot vandals" could have been annoying...but also satisfying, in a way. as long as everyone who objects to your point of view is an "idiot vandal," one can feel very comfortably self-righteous.

i can see how having someone critically edit the article who is not an idiot vandal could puncture complacent self-righteousness, make people defensive and mad; how an accuracy audit of the article may not be perceived as an accuracy audit of the article, but an attack--and not just on the prochoice position, but on the egos of editors who thought their position was the moral high ground. whether that is the case for you or not, i think you need to expend at least one tenth of the energy you spend reacting to me thinking about why you are so reactive to me, and to practice more self control. for example, before you react to me, ask yourself questions such as, how will this improve the article? is there a better way to improve the article? etc. Cindery 22:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jesus' life

You deserve the credit! Great job. —Aiden 16:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

ECP

Hello Andrew c. On the Emergency contraception page, I'm afraid we can't leave the sentence you restored today as is ("ECPs are not to be confused with chemical abortion methods that act after implantation has occurred."). I understand that you retained (with heavy qualification) the "some consider ECPs abortifacient" statement a few paragraphs down, but that's not good enough. To leave intact, with no qualifier at all, a sentence that states "EC is not abortion" (which this sentence, in effect, does) is POV in the extreme. I'll wait a bit for you to tone down its "absoluteness" before doing so again myself. Thanks. Cross-posting this to article Talk. JDG 19:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Criterion of multiple attestation

Thx for your kind invitation, Andrew C. (Hey, I'm a Richmonder too.) I did my best.

I couldn't confirm your other references for Jesus' bros, so I whittled it down to what I could confirm.

The Jesus-JohnBapt reference could use a citation. It's not in Meier, v. 1 for sure. If it's in Ehrman, maybe you could cite which page. (I know Meier's got a treatment of it in v. 2.) Once everything is cited, you might wish to combine into one paragraph, as before. (I broke tham up, b/c I knew they did not all came from the same page of Meier. Nice to see the cross-references for the criteria filling up in Meier. Bold of you to get into it. I'm glad you did & glad I could help. BW, Thomasmeeks 22:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey thanks for doing the really decent thing and letting everyone who may be interested including myself know that you have put an article up for a move. If you want to have any credibility in this discussion, you will extend some basic human courtesy. Having failed that, your contributions will suffer from a perceived, if not real, anti-Catholicism. Though I have had my suspicions, at moments you have made me think that your work on Catholic topics was in a cooperative spirit. Now I see I was made the fool in those moments and my previous instincts were correct. That is disappointing, but not at all surprising. Anyway, I've been fooled once--but will not be again. Even Fishhead who was often devious learned to give some fair warning--though still through trickery. Vaquero100 08:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

primary/secondary sources in sci/med

here's what it actually says, in "Reliable Sources," by the way:

"In science, avoid citing the popular press

The popular press generally does not cover science well. Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance presenting a new experimental medicine as the "discovery of the cure" of a disease. Also, newspapers and magazines frequently publish articles about scientific results before those results have been peer-reviewed or reproduced by other experimenters. They also tend not to report adequately on the methodology of scientific work, or the degree of experimental error. Thus, popular newspaper and magazine sources are generally not reliable sources for science and medicine articles.

What can a popular-press article on scientific research provide? Often, the most useful thing is the name of the head researcher involved in a project, and the name of his or her institution. For instance, a newspaper article quoting Joe Smith of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution regarding whales' response to sonar gives you a strong suggestion of where to go to find more: look up his work on the subject. Rather than citing the newspaper article, cite his published papers." Cindery 04:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is a little bit bigger than that. If I emphasized using popular sources, then I admit I was wrong there. But the use of reliable secondary sources (monographs, scientific textbooks, etc) still seems more favorable than citing individual studies all the time. I know it can be hard to find secondary sources for current events, so that can be a challenge as well. What I most importantly want everyone to keep in mind is the "no original research bit". Sometimes it takes an expert to be able to interpret scientific studies. And publishing such interpretations for the first time here on wikipedia violates OR. Towards the top of the page you quoted me is:

"In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections."

They focus more on having things be verifiable and reliable and representive of the "scientific consensus". Following these guidelines, I still feel the rat study of mifepristone has nothing to do with the human deaths, unless we can cite a reliable source connecting the two (not a popular press article, but something that first WP:RS). Side note, good work with the ME article! Oh and I'm glad your user page isn't a redlink anymore. (sounds like we have a lot in common)--Andrew c 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

1. "what i want everyone to keep in mind is..." this phrase is an example of how you speak sometimes which i believe can be annoying/offensive to others. it makes you sound kinda like a blowhard. remember, it also specifically says in policy that we are not here to supervise each other. careful not to cop the attitude in general that you are an authority, and everyone else must be policed. all other editors are peers with whom you collaborate. you have a tendency to cite policy excessively and as if no one else has read it. and to conflate your opinions and preferences with policy. (yes, you did not appear to be aware that citing the secondary sources is not recommended in sci med; no, i do not need to reread all info not pertaining to sci/med which you have just reiterated...)

2. i'm still waiting for an apology re your behavior regarding complaining about multiple edits and citations. i think it was extremely hostile, intolerant, impatient, and unusual. (i.e., other people do not react this way in general. it is better not to assume that what other people do is directed at you, and you should therefore take great personal offense and "counterattack," especially if what annoys you is a matter of personal preference...) i think it would also be nice if you looked over the talkpage on hormonal contraception and analyzed your communication with me--i.e., it would have been nice if you had said "oh sorry" re recent edits, and if you had posted some response to the follow up about your complaints. i was pretty nice to you both on that talkpage and on your talkpage--and i don't think you returned the favor.

3. please take some time to read over the bottom of Davidruben's talkpage, under "guideline?" i would appreciate it if you spent some time pondering both a) inclusionist treatment even of vandals b) "don't complain--contribute."

4. re the rat study, i think if you feel strongly about it, you are obligated to read the entire "certified verbatim" transcript of the CDER hearing, and every study by esther sternberg, and every study cited by sternberg and miech, to determine that it wasn't included under miech's statement that "the hypothesis that mifepristone can cause bacterial infection is supported by animal experimentation"...in order to evaluate research, one has to do research/read the cited material... Cindery 18:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

copyvios

I feel really bad doing this after trying to smooth things over with you, but I am a little concerned with some of your recent article creations. It seems like you may be violating copyrights by copying content from other sites into your new articles. I'm not going to chide you and quote policy, or ack bigger or more knowledgable than you. I'm just going to say two things: 1) please try to be more careful in the future in regards to using your own words, or using quotes around quoted content and 2) please work to fix these issues in the existing articles you have created. I'd be more than happy to address specifics if that needs to happen, but hopefully this kind note will be enough. Thanks for listening.--Andrew c 02:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

read up on copyright, plagiarism, fair use

based on your comments, it is clear to me that you don't understand any of these concepts. there is, first of all, "substantiality." so, to repeat that the mission statement of organization x is xyz after reading it elsewhere and noting a reference is not a copyright violation of the source, as one sentence has been reproduced, a tiny fraction of the source. (the mission statement of NWHN is several paragraphs long. so a sentence is not only a selective paraphrase, but probably too reductive.) it may be more elegant to say their stated mission is x, but it does not need quotes (And in fact quotes are awk/inelegant.) paraphrasing and rearranging a small fraction of a total source is not copyright violation, particularly where facts are simply restated. (i.e., they are not literary works like say, a poem.) if mere facts are restated, they don't even all have to be reworded, as long as they are not a reproduction in whole (a whole article, a whole paragraph) from a source, particularly where refs are cited. so for example, if one says, she was born in 1932, or she demonstrated a prototype of a machine, this not only does not need quotes, but would be ridiculous. Cindery 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The vote

Hi Andrew. I requested people from WikiProject Catholicism review the Talk page because Roman Catholic Church is our main article. You can see from my own Talk page people from WikiProject Catholicism regularly get asked to participate in votes. You also placed a similar request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism.

On the matter of Sacraments of the Catholic Church, it was well over due to be closed. How would you have called it? --WikiCats 15:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't apologize Andrew. You make a good point about Sacraments of the Catholic Church. I will revert my close and request an admin. do it.

As far as leaving the Roman Catholic Church poll open longer, I think we would need to get the others to agree to that because the poll was supposed to last for 5 days. --WikiCats 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

BCSWowbagger

BCSWowbagger isn't a reliable source, he is just a wikipedia user. 75.2.247.21 17:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is okay to remove any content on wikipedia though that you don't agree with even though it is actually true? 75.2.247.21 17:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)