User talk:Andrew c/archive6
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
- 1 Typebox
- 2 Image:HFTtext.svg
- 3 Category:Periodic abstinence
- 4 Moveable Type
- 5 FA and deletion review
- 6 Birth control categories
- 7 Article improvement drive
- 8 More Excellent Work from Andrew!
- 9 CSS indent solution thanks
- 10 Abortion debate
- 11 User:Stevewk possible block evasion
- 12 Pedantic Presumption
- 13 Categorisation question
- 14 Please Help
- 15 Something of possible interest
- 16 The USA state map
- 17 Researching Wikipedia Online Survey
- 18 Crucifixion eclipse
- 19 Papyrus 45
- 20 Random Smiley Award
- 21 Re:Signature
- 22 My Pleasure
- 23 Biblical manuscripts -- Wow! -- Great work Andrew!
- 24 DYK
- 25 Admin
- 26 Featured Picture
- 27 More questions
- 28 RFA
- 29 Crowning moments
- 30 Protestant POV pushing at Template:Books of the Old Testament
- 31 You're an Admin!
- 32 "discussing"
- 33 Vandalism
- 34 Hmmm
- 35 Block evasion?
- 36 3RR reporting
- 37 Want to try again on Jesus?
- 38 See Talk
- 39 History of the Eastern Orthodox Church
- 40 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plotline of Neon Genesis Evangelion
- 41 Central Citylink map
- 42 WWE One Night Stand
- 43 My recent block
- 44 Talk:Jesus
- 45 New article
- 46 My edits on Mass (Liturgy)
- 47 Excuse me but...
- 48 Black Widows
- 49 Long-term edits by anon
- 50 HR-XML
I think that was the old typebox; it has since been replaced with the new one. Thanks for noticing this.
atanamir 04:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I've removed your CSD tag from Image:HFTtext.svg. Please note that SVG images and PNG images are different; SVG's are better because they can be scaled easily without pixels (since they're based on vector graphics). The CSD redundant image criterion applies only if the images are exactly identical. The SVG is better, but don't mark the PNG for deletion either. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Andrew. The result of the CfD at Category:Periodic abstinence was Delete. Lyrl has since recreated the category. Would you weigh in at Category talk:Periodic abstinence? Thank you! Joie de Vivre 17:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
NOTICE: The old discussion at Category talk:Periodic abstinence is now located at Category talk:Fertility tracking/Periodic abstinence. Joie de Vivre 11:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, today I read about the problems with sxc.hu images. I'm the author/photographer of the image "Metal movable type.jpg" on "moveable type" etc. I was very pleased when I noticed my image at wikipedia. Certainly I would like to give wikipedia/wikimedia the permission to keep the image. What can I do? Willi
FA and deletion review
I looked into deletion review: at the top of the very first section it says "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first - courteously invite the admin to take a second look." I did this and the admin told me "it would be appropriate for you to re-create it". I researched and followed the correct Wikipedia guidelines to the best of my understanding. Lyrl Talk C 14:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm confused about how to proceed. As you had stated at Talk:Fertility awareness, we need to have a centralized discussion. I thought I had created that at Category talk:Periodic abstinence, pointing people there from all the relevant pages with an edit summary (so anyone who watched those pages would have an opportunity to comment), but now we have discussion at Talk:Birth control and also broken discussion on the Talk pages of editors who have been involved so far (like below). I do not agree with JdV's latest proposed suggestion, but because of the recent de-centralizing, I'm not sure where to continue. Is Category talk:Periodic abstinence still a viable location? Or would it be best to do a CfD for rename? Or something else? Lyrl Talk C 17:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Birth control categories
So I realized that creating Category:Fertility awareness and Category:Natural family planning could solve a lot of problems. I was able to pull in John Billings, Humanae Vitae, and Winnipeg Statement into the latter, and Toni Weschler and Barrier contraception into the former. I cross-referenced between the methods and placed links at the top of both categories for easy referencing. I think these are really good categories. We can build upon each concept without muddling the two or causing confusion. Even Lactational Amenorrhea Method and Rhythm method have a place; (in Category:Behavioral methods of birth control as well as Category:Natural family planning.) I don't think there's a need for Category:Periodic abstinence anymore. Let me know what you think. Joie de Vivre 16:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Article improvement drive
Hi, Andrew c. I have just started an Article Improvement Drive for WikiProject Abortion. Please feel free to nominate an article you believe could use improvement. I think this might be a good way to help motivate and organise work on our project's articles. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 01:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
More Excellent Work from Andrew!
Andrew, great work with the colour on List of New Testament papyri! This is Wiki at its most satisfying. When positive contributions from editors just keep building on one-another, without conflict. Love your work, keep it up! :D Alastair Haines 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Andrew, I'm working on copy edit for your wonderful article on the Chester Beatty Papyri. I have already given the topic high importance, and made a note in comments. I will continue to copy edit, and may find some more sources or text for the article if I have time. I will also check the quality criteria very carefully, I'm pretty sure I want to either rate it as a Good Article or nominate it for this category. I will make this rating and/or nomination within the next few days. Cheers Andrew! :) Alastair Haines 02:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
CSS indent solution thanks
hey thanks for the constructive suggestion. so far, so good. Stevewk 01:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Andrew. Red Baron, who recently joined WikiProject Abortion, has reworked the article Abortion debate. It would be helpful to have another assessment, so, if you've the time, would you give the new version a look over? Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 02:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Stevewk possible block evasion
I believe an editor you blocked for 3RR is evading the block by using anon IPs. Would you please consider looking at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Stevewk and the page histories of the articles at which Stevewk was edit warring. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 21:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Andrew: Because you are not an admin and I have not violated any Wikipedia guidelines, I would find it much easier to deal with you if you didn't regularly presume to lecture me about Wikipedia guidelines . I cannot imagine why you have taken such a role upon yourself. Thanks.LCP 00:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind response.LCP 20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
An editor recently added articles on individuals who have committed acts of abortion-related violence, such as Michael F. Griffin, to Category:American pro-life activists. I would be interested to know if other editors who have been involved in establishing the current WikiProject Abortion categorisation system think that these articles fit within the scope of this category. If you have the time (most likely after returning from your vacation), your input would be appreciated. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 01:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- To clarify: I have begun a discussion at Category talk:American pro-life activists. Sorry for putting the cart before the horse. -Severa (!!!) 02:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Andrew can you come to my talk page and tell me how to revert an article to a previous version? Thanks. EnduranceRace 06:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Something of possible interest
- Thanks. I'll look into that!-Andrew c 22:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The USA state map
I know you didn't make this, but you have modified it far more recently than the creators have, so I have a request - could you fix the Delmarva Peninsula to properly give some of it to Virginia? Thanks. --Golbez 02:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Researching Wikipedia Online Survey
We are conducting research into the role of social norms in online communication. This research is funded by the European Union and is being undertaken by a coalition of European Universities (see http://emil.istc.cnr.it/?q=node/8). The research is designed to help us understand how social norms interact with the technology that supports online collaboration. We have selected 35 Wikipedia articles flagged as controversial for study. We are analysing the interactions on the discussion pages and are also seeking additional input from contributors to those discussions.
As a participant in the recent discussion about a controversial topic - Abortion, I would be very grateful if you could follow the link to a simple questionnaire. This should take only 2 minutes to complete.
Bugs-Bunny Bunny 16:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, nice work on the expansion of Papyrus 45. I had been meaning to add some info to that, but you beat me to it--and probably did a better job at it than I would have, anyway. I also wanted to let you know that I nominated it over on the Did you know template, so if you'd like to provide some input or right a better hook for it then feel free. Happy editing! SU Linguist 04:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Random Smiley Award
Harrison-HB4026 07:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It's the CfD template that's broken not liking my signature which works ok on 99% of Wiki (I have seen same problem with Prod template). Feel free to refactor my sig to bare User: if needed for commenting there, I don't mind.--03:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for the note that you left on my talk page. Pleased to meet you Harrison-HB4026 11:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Biblical manuscripts -- Wow! -- Great work Andrew!
This is really impressive Andrew. Everything about your work shows thought, accuracy and clarity, and you are so productive! I already owe you a quality assessment at Chester Beatty Papyri (at least I did the importance rating) but now there is Biblical manuscripts too! :) I should be able to do these things this weekend. I have also noticed that your contributions go back a long way. On behalf of all who will read your work, and be guided by your helpful reclassifications of categories, thank you. Alastair Haines 22:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
--Carabinieri 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Andrew, that's extremely flattering, but I keep telling myself: a) to spend less time on WP, and b) when I am on, to spend more time writing articles & less on the rest. In what I do at the moment I don't, as they say at RfA, "need the tools", so I will decline your very kind offer. Really I think my most useful contribution is to keep filling the many gaps in coverage of my area(s); I'm fortunate in a fair degree of knowledge, and more importantly, lots of reference books. Have you thought of it yourself? I would be delighted to nominate you. Thanks again for thinking of me. Johnbod 17:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Great. Let me check out the process & compose my speech! I've not done it before. Johnbod 17:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Check out User:Johnbod/Byzantine dress (recycling a sandbox) - is there anything significant I haven't covered? I kept it shortish, as I think that's what RfA prefer. When this is finished, I stick it on the page, & you have to accept, and answer the standard questions, before you press the button to take it live. Johnbod 23:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok - page set up, with Alastair Haines co-nominating. The template didn't seem to work fully, so I had to add some bits manually, but it seems ok - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Andrew c. You answer the general questions, and then follow the instructions here. Good luck! - which I'm sure you won't need. I'll keep an eye on it of course. Johnbod 03:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Is it possible for an admin candidate to have three co-nominators? Or would that be overdoing it? -Severa (!!!) 03:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fine by me - I did think of asking you, after reading Andrew's talk page. I dare say no one would mind if you get in quick. Johnbod 03:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I added your stats to the talk page, but they didn't come out the way most people have them - in some ways I think it looks better as it is, but the lack of commas is confusing. By all means redo if you want to (and know how ...) . It seems to be off to a flying start. Johnbod 04:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, that's how you do it! Johnbod 04:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 05:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Since there have been other edits, nb you have a new RfA Q to answer. It seems to be going really well.... Johnbod 02:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Glad to see things are going so well at your RfA (knock on wood). You are a very highly qualified candidate, so it's only logical that it go through easily (though nothing's a given with RfA). Best of luck. MastCell Talk 18:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your time answering my question, and I voted support based on your record and your good answer. My question to admin candidates was a response to the recent massive IAR-based deletion of userboxes and project space pages. Regards. WooyiTalk to me? 23:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. I'm contacting you because you have experience in dealing with our non-free content policy as it pertains to images. A so-far unresolved issue deals with "crowning moments" for beauty pageant contestants. This specific issue is heated because of previous disputes between the aptly named User:PageantUpdater and the obscurely named User:Abu badali, but the same issue could apply to many other classes of images as well. All parties have made their cases adequately, but consensus is still elusive, so the issue remains open long after other problems have been resolved. Could you go to Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_18#Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg and give your opinion? It would really help us to finish this issue and move on. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
(This message was copied to several other image-wonks at the same time.)
Protestant POV pushing at Template:Books of the Old Testament
You're an Admin!
It is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an admin. Congratulations. You can feel free to do everything you're supposed to do and nothing you're not supposed to do. If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. -- Cecropia 06:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations! I didn't vote for you partly because I didn't realize how soon your RFA was closing and also because I have a policy of not supporting or opposing RFAs whose outcome is a foregone conclusion. Yours was clearly going to pass so I didn't vote.
- BTW, let me take the opportunity to thank you for nominating me for adminship. Your good words were much appreciated.
- --Richard 08:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well done - all handled very nicely, & it was good to see how many had seen you around. A cunning move to persuade LM to do his wicked-fairy-at-the-christening number! :) All the best. Johnbod 13:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Congrats. Very well-deserved, as the (virtually) unanimous support attests. Good luck with the buttons, and please let me know if there's anything with which I can give you a hand. I have a few tools at the bottom of my user page that I find handy for what I do (the COI bot, new pages, new accounts, category tracker, etc), but I'm sure you'll figure out what works best for you. If you do any speedy deletions, I highly recommend this tool - it creates a one-click pull-down list of speedy-deletion rationales, so you don't have to type out the same deletion summaries over and over. Best of luck. MastCell Talk 17:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Andrew! Congratulations from me as well. More than congratulations though, thank you! Thank you for offering to accept a measure of responsibility towards the Wiki project, its readers and editors. I have every confidence you will not only enjoy the new "adventure", but make substantial and lasting contributions in organization and policy.
- Also thank you for your contributions, they are the basis of your suitibility to admin service.
- Yes, I did see your addition at Oxy Pap and was delighted. I felt a twinge of pride to have found more documents than WW, but to be quite honest, I was more satisfied to know that others (namely you) could improve on that almost immediately. That's how scholarship works, many eyes on the target mean we catch everything, eventually. :D
- By the way, if your admin work could be assisted by my research at any time, please let me know. I can't promise I'll always have time, but you will certainly have one of my highest priorities.
- Well done! :D Alastair Haines 00:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've been away for a few days so let me add my belated congrats! Sophia 06:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not feel the need to discuss with a troll bent on slandering religious organizations that I respect and opprobriously vandalizing my userpage with spurious tags1, 2. I do not assume good faith since there is obvious evidence to the contrary. That being said I "discussed" my edits now. VHP, htimage hindu temples and aligarh riots.Bakaman 16:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It is interesting that you warned me but did not warn the editor who did violate the 3RR. As I stopped before violating the 3RR and reported it to the proper page this lack of followup on admins part is a little depressing. Added to this is the fact that this user continually blanked their talk page (which I reported twice), a vandalizing violation on its own, so there was no easy way to tell how often they had been warned about other violations before and you did not warn them about that either. The kind of nationalism that is going on on KB's page happens all of the time here on wikipedia and this page will, undoubtedly, return to its original form eventually. The lack of enforcement of basic wikipedia rules is, as I said, a bit sad and I don't blame you (I apologize for venting on your page), but it is wrong for me to be the only one who gets a warning when I am not the one violating policy, MarnetteD | Talk 01:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your followup message and for giving me the link the the 3RR page where I should have reported this in the first place. I appreciate the time that you took to get me straightened out on this situation. Enjoy your new admin duties and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I was doing some tidying when I checked out 1 Esdras and found that the article boldly claims that Anglicans consider the book canonical! This is such nonsense that I suspected it might be a recent addition by the only person I know to hold the view -- an anonymous editor at Wiki. Sure enough, there it was in the edit history. I'm sorry, but I don't have time to go around reverting all this user's edits. And if I did, I have every reason to expect an adminstrator would protect the pages and maybe block me! To be quite honest, we probably don't need to take any action. Such edits (I suspect the user has been systematic) will be reverted bit by bit as others edit the pages.
Sorry to draw you in to this. It's a strange turn of fate. If you weren't admin I'd not even bother reporting this. I'd just point out the evidence next time the user tried to obstruct consensus forming at Template:OT. You know Wiki priorities and your own priorities better than I do, please stick to those. This is just a little thing for you to be aware of, not a specific request for action. Cheers. Alastair Haines 01:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind keeping an eye on the article Shelley Shannon? User:220.127.116.11 first edited the article to replace the term "American terrorist" with "hero" (diff), then removed the term four more times (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4), leaving cryptic edit summaries. 18.104.22.168 was blocked, but, a few hours later, the edit was restored by User:22.214.171.124 (diff). Looking through the contribs of both IPs shows that they have both edited the same obscure article, Amanda Marcotte. Do you think this is a sockpuppet, or an attempt to evade a block? -Severa (!!!) 04:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- That both IPs are from the same region further confirms my initial speculation. For the time being, though, I think I'll refrain from filing a sock report, because I don't know if one edit under a different IP would be considered a serious enough infraction to warrant further investigation. If the user makes the same edit again, under either IP, then I'll file a report, or request semi-protection. Thanks again! -Severa (!!!) 18:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. My mistake. I don't run into a lot of edit wars but I'll remember that next time I make a report. Dark jedi requiem 22:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Want to try again on Jesus?
It's been a bit since the FAC, and I think we were pretty close, even though the nom sort of came out of nowhere. The way I see it based on the FAC feedback, the only major content thing looks to be figuring out what to do with mentioning the apocrypha, and i've actually been using my local library lately for another article, and I know they have books on the subject if necessary. I may only have passing familiarity with super awesome historical scholarship type stuff, but I don't think the apocrypha would warrent too complicated a mention, (Not many of them even mention Jesus' life) so I think it would be easy to do if we (or, preferably, other people as well) worked together on it. The recent improvement of the Bah'ai section I think eliminates the last deficiency besides maybe the other views section, but that's probably something little anyway. What do you think, if we worked together on it for a few days or so, do you think we'd be able to make it an FA? I already started a section on the Apocrypha topic on the talk page, it looks like I was talking to the digital tumbleweeds though when I recommended and then implemented the removal of two sort of irrelevant sentences.... Homestarmy 03:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I studied the FAC a good bit when it was close to done and finished, and it looks like several people agreed there needed to be more on the apocrypha, though I do feel everything else was pretty much taken care of, including the referencing problems. However, to tell you the truth, if someone who knows a bunch in this area like User:Slrubenstein or someone agreed, i'd favor trying to argue in another FAC that an apocrypha section isn't really that important compared to all the other material, of all the works I know of that mention Jesus, several of them either say little about his life, or are obviously not trustworthy. Though, not being an expert in this area, I wouldn't want to start arguing with people just based on what i'm thinking alone. Homestarmy 03:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like you to review this edit  which removes text entered by User:LoveMonkey. I removed the text because it attempts to cast the East-West schism as a conflict between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Arianism. I admit that I am not an expert in Christian history but this is an interpretation of history that I have never heard of.
Just wanted to bounce it off somebody else because I suspect this may become a point of contention and I wanted to make sure that I am on firm ground. I had not realized that the elite of the medieval German tribes were Arian but, according to the article on Arianism, they were. This, however, does not support the theory that Germanic Arian tribes "conquered" the Western church.
--Richard 11:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Good work with the closing; however, articles being merged cannot be deleted. A (sometimes protected) redirect has to be established instead per the GFDL to preserve edit history. — Deckiller 02:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for pinging me on the result of the AfD. I will work on merging the article's content into the main article if no one beats me to the punch. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ah it's okay. Usually the practice is to preserve the history on the actual article that is being redirected (it also makes it clear that a decision had been made in case any newcomers want to remake the article). Usually, the userfied article is copy-and-pasted.
- By the way, nice work choosing a major AfD so early in your career. — Deckiller 03:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. The reason why I like merging things so much is that it makes everyone happy in most situations. It's so necessary to compromise on Wikipedia (even in some of the obvious scenerios), especially with our diverse body of editors. Sometimes by leading people on such trails, they'll learn by themselves why the policies are how they are. — Deckiller 03:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
A minor point- please can you put the closing afd template right at the top (above the heading), so it fully closes out the afd debate on the log page. It's so the bot/scripts know it's closed. Cheers, Peter 12:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for the advice. I have done as you suggested. Dewarw 15:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
WWE One Night Stand
I have add a FUR for the pic, would it count as a revert if I removed the warning from the ONS article? TJ Spyke 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
My recent block
Well, I blocked because the IP had vandalized over 20 times, and about 4 (based on the warnings) times after his block. I missed the part that he hadn't vandalized after the warning, but don't worry, I always check (forgot this time though... >_<). I'll leave the block in place though, because of his past (and sparse) vandalism (some users do that to evade blocks). Use common sense when blocking, that's my tip. :) · AndonicO Talk 22:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I got bad vibes from reading the posts and was reluctant to join in - now I know why! Sophia 15:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I see you recently posted an item on the WikiProject Abortion noticeboard. Regarding the article Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate, its content was copied from an old version of Abortion debate, so it's not actually a new article. Do you think this qualifies are content-forking? Or do you think that the philosophical arguments which are only touched upon briefly in the recently-revised version of the "Debate" article warrant more in-depth coverage in a new spin-out? -Severa (!!!) 18:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
My edits on Mass (Liturgy)
Thanks for your advice Andrew, but I understood by the title of the article "Mass in the Catholic Chruch" that it was implicit that it described a Catholic understanding of their liturgy - it certainly read like that to me, and c.f. later it goes on to detail the Anglican theology of Mass/Communion/Eucharist etc. Given this structure to the article I didn't think it contrary to NPOV and didn't believe it necessary to explain that this is what Catholics are asked to believe at every point.
Thanks also for adding 'citation needed' re: the washing of hands - I am studied in Catholic theology and ligurgy, however I have - shall we say - "moved on" ;-) So better people than me will be more able to supply references. There exist no official reasons for this action in the liturgical documents, it is simply included in the rite.
I felt the emphasis on the presence of Christ in the communion was detrimental to the more accurate Catholic belief that Christ is equally present in the gathering, the proclamation of the Gospel and the person of the priest in the action of offering the sacrifice as much as in the consecrated host and wine. Essentially it is this that distinguishes Catholic belief in the substance of its liturgy from the celebrations of the various other Christian faiths.
Anyway, I'm a newbie editor, and hope I didn't cause any problems... am still finding my way.
Subskinboi 22:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me but...
...do you mind finishing the job with Panairjadde socks? Please have a look at these edits and block the rest of the socks listed on the PPP page... Thanks --Palffy 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The article List of Black Widows goes with the article Black Widow (woman) don't move it, unless you can get a consensus, you should have discussed in on the talk page first. In addition, don't remove articles from categories that are under review for deletion Category:Black Widows. PianoKeys 23:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Long-term edits by anon
User:126.96.36.199 has recently made a number of problematic edits throughout abortion-related articles, and, looking through this anon's contribution history, it becomes apparent that this IP has been making similar edits to abortion-related articles for over 2 years. Moreover, although it is a shared IP, I believe that an established Wikipedia editor may have been using this IP address to make these edits (see this diff, which indicates use of the IP by an established user [username in diff], the established user's own history of contributions to abortion-related articles, and the fact that the IP's talk page and the established editor's user page both mention a YMCA in Milwaukee). I feel that the similarities are too many for there not to be some connection. What do you think? -Severa (!!!) 02:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Andrew c wrote:
I believe John Vandenberg makes the best case for notability, but I'm shocked that none of that made it into the actual article.
Before expressing such shock to readers of the HR-XML deletion discussion, I'd suggest that you survey the entries for other consortia. I don't believe the HR-XML article is any less substantiated than any of the other articles for peer organizations/formats that I mentioned. Consider (XBRL, ACORD, Interactive Financial Exchange, RosettaNet, Association for Retail Technology Standards the Data-Interchange-Standards-Association, Health Level 7, eLML, WS-I, hResume, and ANSI ASC X12).
You also need to consider the role of consortia as independent, consensus voices for the groups they represent. Is there anything in the article that you believe is shockingly unsubstantiated? Is there anything at all that is unsubstantiated? Isn't it reasonable for HR-XML to be the source of information for what HR-XML is, what is included in its specification library, and which companies are members? HR-XML's library is in motion. We've put out 10 releases in the last 5 years - the most recent being April 2007. Do I explain the content of one of our specifications by pointing to a book's explanation of the specification or the specification itself? Another role that HR-XML serves is to substantiate adoption through our certification program. You could find many more unsubstantiated claims and assertions of HR-XML adoption and compliance on the web and in literature. While there is always room for improvement, I don't see that there are issues covered in this article that are unsubstantiated or for which it is inappropriate for HR-XML to the source. If you have a different opinion, please list these items.
This may not be part of wikipedia's current guidelines, but there is not any other sensible way to establish the notability of a consortium than to examine the notability of the consortium's members and documented adoption of the consortium's specifications within the particular market the organization is intended to serve.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chuckhr-xml (talk • contribs) 00:32, 10 July 2007