User talk:Andrew c: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:44, 22 July 2006

Talk Page Archives:
Archive 1 (9 February – 16 June 2006)

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

bibleverses

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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! :-) roma rin [talk ] 21:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Codex

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 |[[/archive1|Archive 1]] (9 February &ndash; 16 June [[2006]])
 |}
+{{RFM-Request|Kittie May Ellis}}
 == bibleverses ==