User talk:Andycjp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Greetings

Greetings, Andycjp! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you haven't already done so, please carefully read the following pages:

You can sign your name with ~~~~ (or just ~~~ to leave out the date stamp). If you have questions or doubts of any sort first see the help pages, then do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump and somebody will respond ASAP. Have fun! --Jiang 08:01, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Smith Wiki Project

I notice you've been contributing to the Kevin Smith article... Would you like to join other Wikipedians in maintenance, enhancement, and protection of all Kevin Smith articles? If so, I'm trying to start a Kevin Smith WikiProject, and we need more souls. If you decide this is for you, be sure to list your View Askew or Wiki expertise (I see you seem to specialize in minor clean-up), so we can divide the labor once the project is accepted. Look forward to working with you! --DodgerOfZion 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's cool, just saw you had a lot of contribs in that article, figured you'd be interested. But hey, you're always welcome to join the project. --DodgerOfZion 04:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your recent edit of Blasphemy

I find this edit of yours very peculiar. The article Victimless crime (political philosophy) links to Blasphemy, and blasphemy is (as far as I can see) completely victimless. (Who would be the victim? The god-entity?). Obviously, it "neither violates nor significantly threatens the rights of other individuals". It is equally obvious that that it is illegal (i.e. a crime) in less democratic parts of the world.

I would be most obliged if you would explain your reasons for removing the link to Victimless crime (political philosophy). Thank you. --Wasell(T) 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emil Schallopp

Thanks for fixing the typo in Handbuch des Schachspiels. Quale 17:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

  • My knowledge of the King's Gambit is nil, but I'll look into what my opening references say about Schallopp's defense. We have a few strong players who are part of WP:CHESS (I'm not one of them), but I haven't seen them around much this week. Quale 06:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's no trouble. I appreciate any efforts to improve the chess articles in Wikipedia, and we should say some more about Schallopp (and include references). If you'd like to join the Chess Wikiproject, take a look at WP:CHESS and the WT:CHESS talk page. Quale 09:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errant Warning

I mistakenly posted a vandalism warning on your page. It was meant for an anon IP, but my Vandal Proof tool is a little off today and posted on your page instead. I undid the edit in question. Sorry!Hiberniantears 15:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MERGER : The End of the Affair

I am asking for your input about an article merger at:

Talk:The End of the Affair / Discussion > Article MERGE suggestion (October 2007)

- Thanks! - IP4240207xx 02:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits on Rumiko Takahashi

Hi there, please don't forget to provide an wikipedia:edit summary for your edits, so other editors know what you've changed. Also, you can combine several smaller changes and check the result with the preview button, this prevents cluttering up the page history. Thanks! Ninja neko 09:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Word of God

The problem with this title is that it's nigh-impossible to create much here that could possibly conform to WP:NPOV. Inserting a redirect to, say, an article on a Christianity-related topic would be POV in favor of that religion, as would redirecting it to any article on any other religion. It would basically be an assertion that whatever topic the title redirects to is (or is related to) the word of God, and that would violate NPOV. If there's a more balanced article on general religion that this could redirect to, then that could possibly work. If not, then it will likely need to be delinked wherever it is linked. --Coredesat 05:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've looked at it, Revelation may be a good target, but it might not be a good idea to arbitrarily place a redirect right now. I'd take the issue to DRV or RFPP and see if you can get consensus for it. --Coredesat 17:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redlinks

Redlinks are good. Please don't remove them. Hesperian 04:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] eikaiwa-fraud

Are you with Nove or another? Now I am wary about going that way. 03:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fact tag

Hello. I see you added a fact tag to Toy with this edit. Your edit summary said, "source please which ones?"

I'm a little unclear as to what you are wanting a source for. You put the tag in the middle of a sentence, right after a clause that said, "They [toys] can be donated via many charities."

What exactly are you wanting clarified by a source? That many charities take toys? Or are you wanting to know which charities take them? Or which toys said charities take? Or something in the later part of the sentence? Or something else entirely?

I did not insert the sentence in question... but the fact that many charities take toys is one of those common-knowledge things that is commonly assumed not to require a source. I'm sure I can find one if that is what you are wanting... I just want to make sure that that IS what you want a source for. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 02:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November 2007

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Princess Mononoke, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Please remember to uncheck the "minor edit" box when you are adding, removing, otherwise altering non-vandal content. Collectonian 16:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I'm not sure if you're aware but comments to talk pages should always be placed under their own heading at the bottom unless you're replying to an existing comment. I moved your comment here [1] down to a more appropriate place Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re Swedish emigration to the United States

Hi there - I notice that you have put a "citation needed" tag in the lede of the above article. This featured article is written in one of the approved formats, with no citations in the lede but all facts stated in the lede discussed and referenced in the article proper. In this case, the reference to religious prosecution is referenced in the "Mid-19th century" section (4th paragraph). If you have no objection, I will remove the {{fact}} tag as the information is sourced, just further down in the article. (I'm just watching over this article on behalf of a user who is away from the wiki, but will try to answer any questions you have.) Thanks. Risker (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Minor edits

You have repeatedly marked edits as minor that are, in fact, not minor. This is considered very misleading on Wikipedia, and when done repeatedly can be considered vandalism. Here's one example (out of many): On the disambiguation page Money (disambiguation), you made these three edits: 1, 2, and 3. The first edit removes two legitimate items from the list and adds a red link (and on your user page you claimed to be trying to reduce red links). The third edit makes the first edit redundant as well as a red link. Of the three edits, only the second one is in fact minor. I suspect perhaps on the "Editing" tab of "My Preferences" you have checked "Mark all edits minor by default". That's fine if you remember to uncheck minor when the edit is in fact not minor. Please read Help:Minor edit before making additional edits. Ward3001 (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I need to ask: why do you continue to mark the majority of your edits as m minor in clear violation of the minor edit guidelines? The latter (Help:Minor edit) state: "any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit is a single word." In addition to the above listed violations I would add the following recent examples: [2];[3];[4] The list goes on and on. I brought up my concerns with you about this a few days ago [[5]] and you agreed that you had made this type of mistake. Yet you continue on in the same pattern. So I'm asking kindly, why? Can I help out in some way? Let's try resolve this here and now. Just to keep everything above board I want to let you know that if we can't resolve this between you and me, I intend to ask other editors to take a look and give input. Help me out here. Peace. -Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
We are dealing with two (and only two) possibilities here. The first one is that Andycjp is maliciously marking non-minor edits as minor, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If that's the case, the rest of us need to make a WP:ANI report to see if we can get him blocked. The other possibility is that he has (perhaps unintentionally) selected "Mark all edits minor by default" in his editing preferences. That's a simple matter to fix; uncheck the box; if you don't know how, read what I wrote above, or ask us and we'll help. So I am now asking Andycjp to tell us which of these two possibilities is the reason he marks virtually all of his edits as minor. If we get no response and he continues marking non-minor edits as minor from this point forward, we can safely assume the he is maliciously editing and go ahead with the WP:ANI report. Ward3001 (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Not malicious, sorry.Andycjp 23:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
At this point that answer is not good enough. Here's a specific question: Is "Mark all edits minor by default" checked in your editing preferences? Please look and respond "Yes" or "No". If you don't know how to check this, please ask and we will help you. If it is checked, it needs to be unchecked. Please confirm this and let us know before making additional edits. Respond on this talk page so everyone can see. Ward3001 (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

unchecked now.Andycjp (talk) 03:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. But be aware that if your edits continue the previous pattern, there will be a WP:ANI report made. Ward3001 (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of England

Please return here and post to Talk to what exactly you object. The sentence is compound and so which part you're disputing is not clear. Thanks! Wjhonson (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your change to the previous version which was accepted by editor-consensus. You can review the discussion on the associated Talk page article. Please seek consensus for your change. Thanks and have a great day! Wjhonson (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed on Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum

It is entirely unreasonable to put a "citation needed" tag on a passage at 7:12 and then delete the passage at 9:56 the same day. Have some patience. A citation may be provided. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Altar Boyz, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. --omtay38 07:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent Schopenhauer edits

Regarding the above (17 separate "minor" edits) I would like to strongly urge you to either:

This will help keep the edit counts down and allow other editor's to more efficienty follow the substantial changes you are making.

I also want to echo the editors above who make the point that the m for minor edit should not be used for changes in the meaning of an article, only small spelling and grammar corrections. See further: Help:Minor edit

If I can be of any assistance just drop a line. Thanks, Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] recent fish edits

Hi - good job on these. however, the last one you did, for npov reasons(?), leaves things a bit confused. It is now like the culture section begins in the middle of a sentence. I don't see how the original text was POV, but maybe I'm missing something. In any event, it needs a bit of touching up to make more sense. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paraclete in Islam

andycjp, thanks for your attention to the Paraclete article. That said, I think your distillation of the fairly confusing block of text may have drawn out the wrong point that whoever posted that bit (and presumably added the Muslim prophets template) meant to make. I think that rather than identifying Gabriel as the Holy Spirit, and therefore as the Paraclete, the poster was trying to say that in his/her interpretation the Paraclete isn't the Holy Spirit at all but rather that the Paraclete refers to a new prophet who will be sent as a counselor after Jesus is gone and that this prophet is Muhammad. I have changed the text to reflect this interpretation instead. Check out the references and see what you think. Certainly it was unclear though what exactly was meant in that original mess. CharlusIngus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.187.201 (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

  • No apology necessary. I was pretty confused by the whole thing before you got to it. so I really appreciate your efforts to summarize the thing. getting it down to a managable size helped me see where that bit might have been going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.187.201 (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aya Hirano

Quite a bit of history in your talk page here. Not surprised. Please explain your edits for deletion of an entire section and sarcastic edit summaries while taking out information in the discussion page. Blood type is often listed in Japanese profiles. Please do some research before deeming things only you consider excessive or inappropriate.

I hope this further helps to serve as proof for editors of other articles when they find Andycjp making edits of this kind to articles they help watch over. He seems to repeat the same mistakes and I would hope he is up for a ban in the near future if he continues this.--Willsun (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"rv inappropriate personal details: inappropriate marketing"
Please explain why this is marketing. I'm not even sure how this remotely has anything to do with marketing. Also please explain to me the inappropriate part. Is it the "racism" involved in the blood type part? If so, I've given my explanation in my talk page which you've seemed to ignore debating before making edits again.
People who look up Aya Hirano will want to know information. I don't know how those two details you have an issue against is inappropriately "selling" Aya Hirano. There is no extraneous details tacked on to those facts to build any sort of artificial image.--Willsun (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defamatory content

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Willsun. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SocialPicks

I don't know if you've seen this article, but would you stop by the AfD page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SocialPicks to offer your opinion on whether the article subject is notable? Thanks. Dimension31 (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Hick

I saw that you made some contributions to John Hick in the past few months. The article was recently up for deletion due to its lack of sources. I completely rewrote the article and currently everything is sourced. If you can, please re-add your contributions (as they were good) but please make sure you provide sources. Thanks! Hazillow (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good edits, thanks for removing the POV. Hazillow (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Dude

An editor has nominated Dude, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dude and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Isaiah 53

Would you care to explain your revert on Isaiah 53? The user has made a proposal on the talk page, and your revert without comment or discussion serves no purpose excepts to continue the edit warring. Talking things out is much more productive than unexplained, blanket reverting.-Andrew c [talk] 00:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] red link on Notre Dame

Hi, Andycjp. fyi, I restored the red link you removed from Notre Dame. As it is a disambiguation page, it is fine for that red link to be there as List of universities in Japan and List of current and historical women's universities and colleges in Japan also point to that same red link. Check out MOS:DAB#Red links for more info. Happy editing. --Gwguffey (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed tag on kingfisher

Could you explain exactly what you are wanting a citation for? You have put the tag right after 'evolved', and you seem to be a bit of a bible quoter, so I'm suspicious you may be placing it here because you doubt the fact of evolution itself. If that's the case, though I wouldn't take the time to educate you myself, I must request you stop making such edits to articles. Richard001 (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity

Hello Andycjp!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 04:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Andycjp! Welcome to Wikiproject Christianity! Thank you for joining. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - Tinucherian (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Getting Started
Useful Links
Miscellaneous
Work Groups
Projects
Similar WikiProjects


[edit] BVM page

Hi, The Blessed Virgin Mary page is beng debated on the Admins notice board. Please wait for them to make a decision via mediation prior to further reverts. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter
The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter!
Issue V - May 2008
Article News
Project News
Member News
  • Our membership continues to expand. It is currently at 223 users. 39 new users have joined the WikiProject in the month of April 2008. Please make them feel welcomed!
Christianity Articles by Quality
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
To do list of the Project
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
Archives of previous newsletters can be found here.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, add your name here.
If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, let ~ The Newsletter Editors know.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by Addbot (talk) 15:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC) .

[edit] Noah's Ark

Taiwanboi has asked for a vote on certain matters on Noah's Ark. As a recent editor you might like to be involved. (See how impartial I am - I invite absolutely everyone! :). PiCo (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] evolution

Per this edit, how does the word evolution violate WP:NPOV? Looking through your recent contribs, it looks like you've declared war on the word and that just isn't sensible. Can you discuss the change on talk page before continuing please? Ben (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know the answer to that myself. If you are POV-pushing elimination of the word "evolution" from a religious standpoint, you are way out of line, especially when you don't discuss such a pervasive change on the talk page first. If you don't give a reasonable explanation for removal of "evolution" in a day or two, I plan to revert all your page moves and deletions involving that word. Ward3001 (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
And one more point. You have resumed your old habit (discussed at length earlier on your talk page) of marking non-minor edits as minor. A page move is not a minor edit. Please explain that also. Since this has been covered with you extensively in the past, I am about ready to assume that you are malicously identifying potentially controversial edits as minor so that they will go unnoticed. That is a clear Wikipedia policy violation. Ward3001 (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Not the case ward.Andycjp (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, give the explanations, both of them. Why are you removing instances of evolution? And why are you marking major edits as minor. Details please. Your typical three or four word explanations will no longer work. Ward3001 (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop trying to defame me as usual and read the Formation and evolution of the solar system talk pageAndycjp (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing on that talk page that explains your behavior. So give us your explanations here. Again, why are you repeatedly removing the word evolution. And why are you marking major changes as minor. Don't hide behind a "defame me" or "wikilove" argument. We are talking about fundamental Wikipedia policy. It is inappropriate to make such a major change as a page move without thorough discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 03:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved a page and then as wiki guidelines recommend started to update the links until Ben here asked me to stop. Who do you think you are to be my judge and jury?Andycjp (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia policies are your judge and jury, and you have violated those policies on two counts. If you are sincere on this issue, the proper thing to do is to move the pages back to their original names and start a discussion of the talk pages about renaming the articles. And stop marking major edits as minor. You have been asked to explain your behavior and have not done so. Make the appropriate changes or other editors will do so. And if you continue this type of unexplained editing, it will be taken up on WP:ANI. Ward3001 (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


I moved the pages back to their original names. If you wish for them to be renamed again, discuss on Talk and wait for consensus. Ward3001 (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits, again

You have repeatedly marked edits as minor that are, in fact, not minor. This is considered very misleading and rude on Wikipedia, and when done repeatedly can be considered vandalism. Please read Help:Minor edit before making additional edits. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 03:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red links

Can you stop removing red links because they're red please? Example. The idea is that hopefully someone will write an article about red linked item at some point. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC).