User talk:Andrew c
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Talk Page Archives: |
|---|
| Archive 1 (9 February – 16 June 2006) |
| Archive 2 (5 August – 9 September 2006) |
| Archive 3 (9 September – 11 November 2006) |
| Archive 4 (12 November – 28 February 2007) |
Contents |
[edit] Purgatory
Andrew, I remember you as an experienced editor when I was a noob, so I'm turning to you for some advice. LostCaesar has given the Purgatory page an overhaul that, not coincidentally, is quite favorable to RCC doctrine, and he's resisting my edits in response. I put a POV tag on the page, and I don't see a resolution that LC and I will both be happy with. Of all the people that try to defend the Christian viewpoint by suppressing contrary information, LC is one of the most responsible and reasonable, but the purgatory page has been our special point of conflict since I started on WP. If he resists my input, I'm out of options. Any insight or advice you could offer would be welcome. Jonathan Tweet 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] John of Patmos move
Sorry for the abrupt merge of John of Patmos. I thought of raising for discussion until that only 2 people had ever written on the talk page, so I thought it a rarely seen article that no one would miss. Notice that I explained my reasons for the merge on the talk page before merging. You implied that this was part of some POV plot; it's not. I don't have any opinion on who wrote Revelation and I merged Patmos to Authorship of the Johannine works where the issue is NPOV. If I was promoting the Apostle as the author, I would redirected to John the Apostle. I'm tagging the page for a merge now. You're welcome to contribute. --Ephilei 01:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Misandry
I noticed you over at misandry and was wondering if you could help out. I have tried to comunicate about wikipedia policy to the anon, but there has been no progress yet (just edit warring, which I am trying to avoid). I was hoping a 3rd perspective might be able to help out in the dispute. There was talk page discussion concerning the western culture section and the critical link, yet anon keeps ignoring the previous consensus. At least now, it appears the anon is willing to come to talk, but they need to understand that you don't re-insert controversial content during a content dispute BEFORE the new consensus is reached. Perhaps the edits are for the better, but procedurally, I think the edit warring is clearly in bad form. Also, the "western culture" text is copied and pasted from the web, not from the original code, so a lot of the markup and references have been lost. Anyway, any help would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 19:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
text above is copy/pasted from User_talk:Edgarde
- Thanks for asking. I'll keep an eye on the discussion. I've saved some excessively conservative edits, explained them on the Talk page, and linked that explanation from anon's Talk page. I hope it does some good, but with some of the Misandry editors it's like shouting into a void. I've recently been reluctant to post on Talk:Misandry because I felt my comments had become non-constructive and served to inflame more than illuminate.
- Has the anon been identified (beyond his IP address) with any certainty as a previous editor? I think the battle he's fighting was previously someone else's.
- I'm watching your Talk page, so you can reply here or on my page. / edgarde 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you very much for coming and giving your two cents. I agree with a lot of what you said on talk. I am not sure the exact history of this anon editor, besides what can be found in their contribution history. Thanks again for your input.-Andrew c 23:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents due to yet another revert without comment or attempt to fix problems. Talk page notices are past the final warning stage, and user is causing similar PITA in at least one other article. / edgarde 16:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Levonorgestrel
Re. to your request, I just hacked it around a bit. Can you take a look at it now and see what you think? The article is a bit sparse on data still and needs fleshing out - Alison☺ 01:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Fetal pain
I was about to weigh in at Talk:Fetal pain when you posted on my talk page. I didn't get around in time, because I've been trying to untangle a dispute with Joie de Vivre at Category talk:Methods of abortion. I don't even know where to begin with Fetal pain, but I'll see what I can do, although I won't be available from Friday to Sunday because I'm going on vacation (as opposed to just a Wikibreak).
Take a Wiki-break for as long as you desire, or even leave WikiProject Abortion/Wikipedia if you so wish, but my only request is that you not be cowed into backing down (i.e. withdrawing your concerns) when I feel that you're not the one who is in the wrong. I think you've handled yourself very well in the face of such pressure; you have attempted to work constructively with Ferrylodge, to see eye to eye with him, despite whatever differences there might be between you. You have owned up to whatever errors in judgement or conduct you might have made in the process. I thought I'd had my fill of it all a number of times, too, but, after a while away, I came back refreshed and ready to pick up where I left off. You've been holding down the fort while I was away, but now that you're facing your own burnout, I suppose it's time for me to pick up the slack. We've made it through Pro-lick, G&E, and Cindery before. Wikipedia isn't a contest: if someone can "win," then everyone loses. Articles are improved by consensus, or, failing that, compromise, not by concession to the editor who is willing to push the hardest and vocalize the loudest. -Severa (!!!) 22:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Al Gore
I am not sure what better background I can give for the use of the word libertarian to describe the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. I have been with the organization since before it was officially founded and understand its philosophical basis. I fear that most of the world does not understand the difference between libertarian, conservative, and liberal, philosophically speaking. This is further confused by political parties adopting and distorting these terms. I merely seek to be accurate here. NPR did accurately describe TCPR as libertarian (the philosophy not the political party) at the following link: [1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nysara (talk • contribs) 19:58, 14 March 2007.
- My apologies that you were singled out. I asked you the question directly because your responses seemed well thought out. --Nysara 01:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Al Gore
I replied. —Doug Bell talk 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism of Christianity
You're right. I lost my temper. I'll leave apologies on their talk pages. Thank you! Ecto 23:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Abortion methods
If you have the time, could you weigh in again here and here, as your input could help us to reach an agreement with which we can go forward. I hate to leave the WikiProject Abortion categorization system suspended in a twilight state. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 01:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please check out Category talk:Abortion by kind. I'm going on a real vacation and my check-in time is in two hours so I won't be available to sort this all out. I tried to create enact a blend of our compromise proposals from Category talk:Methods of abortion but now it is my opinion that Joie de Vivre is being small and reactionary. I think a third party could help smooth this out. I'm sick of it, really, because we've got it coming from all sides right now, and no one is ever happy about anything. -Severa (!!!) 19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jesus
I appreciate that you have taken the time to read my edits, and I mean nothing personal about the reversion. I tried hard to add citations to my additions, and I think if you feel its uncited, we can add more. I'd like to improve the article by adding more relevant and accurate information rather than let is stay in a neglected state Wyatt 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Papyrus 1
I undeleted Papyrus 1 because it appeared to contain useful information that could easily be converted to a stub, and therefore did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I also saw that it was deleted less than 24 hours after it had been added, and the material seemed like fairly dry research, comparable to stuff we include from the CIA factbook all the time. Wesley 01:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Beyonce pic
That wasn't a request, that was a comment on a request. LittlePete 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
There's been another inbetween my comment and your deletion. Can you restore it? LittlePete
Sorry, I'm still finding my way around. I promise not to bother you or the Graphics Lab anymore. LittlePete 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Categorization
Your input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 19. Severa seems unwilling to budge on their stance that Category:Methods of abortion must be buried. Can you see my concern that the medical procedures should not be buried amongst things like Feticide? Joie de Vivre 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bible CfD
Have you seen Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_24#Famous_and_Rare_bibles ? One for you I think.
On the illuminated MS, DmsGold I think now agrees with me on dropping the intermediate J-C Ill MS category. Are you ok with this? I think that's the only point of difference between us, isn't it? I've also asked on the Ill MS talk page for comments on some precise names for new sub-cats - do have a look, Cheers Johnbod 15:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
