Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:54, 3 July 2007

much gratitude expressed!

A big THANKS for taking on the task of categorizing the typefaces. This is an area I am interested in but have not the expertise to keep up with. ⇔ ChristTrekker 19:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Folio, multiple specimens

Hi Andrew c. You are welcome. A great, and underappreciated face. Hey, please feel free to delete multiple specimens not in use. I suppose some may be of different versions, e.g. Bodoni Antiqua v. Bauer Bodoni. Do you think we might have articles on various versions of the faces? Thank you for all the work invested in organization. I see you are in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Any connection with the Virginia Commonwealth University? Thanks for the barnstar! Best, Jim CApitol3 22:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You surely did have some great teachers! Jim CApitol3 22:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Caspar Rene Gregory

Nice work Andrew! Very pleased indeed. :D Alastair Haines 10:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Manuscript categories

Hmmm, it's tricky. There are about 4,500 Oxyrhynchus manuscripts. Less than 50 are New Testament. Even p13 is actually on the back of a Livy text.

The dilemma is, from a general Oxyrhynchus POV, relationship to the NT is a drop in the ocean. However, from a NT POV, Oxyrhynchus has a very significant place.

Most things are pretty fluid at Wiki. It looks as though a lot of work has been done on Illuminated manuscripts, at one stage they were pretty much all that we had. Naming and categories followed concerns of the one discipline that cared to put content on Wiki. Now we are starting more systematic treatment of all Biblical manuscripts, I guess we need to think about past, present and future.

We can't predict the future exactly, so however carefully we try to name things, those might be superceded. It's hard to change past decisions without causing offence. I would think the main thing is we need to cater for the present and near future.

Two main principles jump to mind.

• Articles should be placed in the most specific category of a heirarchy of caategories.
• Articles can be placed in many categories (but not higher categories, where a more specific one exists).

Here are two suggestions.

1. Categories Category:Oxyrhynchus papyri is a subset of Category:Oxyrhynchus manuscripts. All current articles are about Oxyrhynchus papyri and so should be in that category and not the other one. Before we remove the higher category, we should check that all Oxyrhynchus manuscripts are papyri. If they are, we can delete Oxyrhynchus manuscripts. If they are not, let's create a couple of stubs for the Oxyrhynchus parchments. Alternatively, we could create Category:Oxyrhynchus and place the parchment stubs in that, along with the Oxyrhynchus article and the Grenfell and Hunt stubs and the List of Oxyrhynchus papyri.

2. List Certainly this list, as it is currently named, lends itself to probably all 4,500 manuscripts. When it gets big enough, it can be split into additional lists and/or articles. The names for those articles will be obvious to whoever is editing at the time. For example: Oxyrhynchus Coptic papyri, Oxyrhynchus New Testament papyri, Oxyrhynchus Latin papyri, Oxyrhynchus Greek papyri, Oxyrhynchus Demotic papyri.

Given the prominent place of the Oxy NT papyri for NT textual criticism, the List of Oxy papyri article does need to remain in NT papyri (though it can be included elsewhere as well). Actually, I think there are Old Testament (maybe Septuagint) papyri from Oxyrhynchus too.

The bottom line is that articles are often relevant to multiple categories, the more the merrier really, it just helps navigation. However, we just need to make sure that articles don't appear multiple times within a single heirarchy. If it's a New Testament Greek miniscule, it doesn't belong at Biblical manuscripts, if there is a more specific sub-category of Bib mans.

Well, sorry about the essay. I'm sure you'll make good decisions. I'll work around whatever you come up with. The only thing that would be crazy is if the text that points out the domination of Oxyrhynchus papyri among NT papyri ended up in an article that wasn't in any Biblical manuscript categories, and therefore ended up being hard to find. Or if the NT papyri category suddenly lost all the Oxy paps, which is actually a third of all its members. It would be unnecessary, because Categories can be "both ... and" not simply "either ... or". If the worst comes to the worst, just include Oxy paps or Oxy mans in more than one super-category.

Cheers. Alastair Haines 15:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Ministers of the Universal Life Church

Thank you for your cfd contribution to the above category. I'm glad to see some feedback from someone who understands. I appreciate you taking the time to leave your well thought out comment. GreenJoe 15:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Dragonfly image

-- Andrew, I am not sure if this is how one gets a hold of people to comment about errors.

1) But I saw the graphic of the dragonfly, which I was very very impressed. 2) But then I had to chuckle a little on the wings. They are not even close to being right.

I am trying to contact you since your name is associated with the image's wings. My quibble is minor, but here it goes. The basic problem is that those wings were scanned and traced from a Hymenoptera (Probably a bee or wasp, I do not have time to tell you for sure) and then attached to this simplified odonate diagram. For us pedantic entomologists that use wikipedia, this error is conspicuous and detracting. Is there a way you can add odonata wings? Given this image is associated with an "award image" and on a page on dragonfly anatomy, it beg to be rectified.

You can delete this msg from me as soon as you read it, or if you can, pass this msg to whom it concerns. PS, I dig that you like fix gears. Awesome!

Thanks.02:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC) moscow999

• Andrew, Thanks for the link. I went there and explained the problem with diagram, not your doing, but problems with terms and wings.

Moscow999 01:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Saints" and Sinners

I see you have removed the "Saint" references from the Vulgate article, on the basis that these are POV. I tend to think that rather that the term - as used in an encyclopedia article - is simply factual and descriptive; it differentiates persons who are venerated by a religious tradition from those that are not, with no implication that of approval or agreement with this position. Is there an agreed policy in Misplaced Pages on this - or is it simply your point of view, that the term is POV? TomHennell 10:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Typebox

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)

Image:HFTtext.svg

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)

Category:Periodic abstinence

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)

Moveable Type

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 Misplaced Pages guidelines to the best of my understanding. Lyrl _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 _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)

Abortion debate

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Have you considered a request for checkuser? -- tariqabjotu 00:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pedantic Presumption

Andrew: Because you are not an admin and I have not violated any Misplaced Pages guidelines, I would find it much easier to deal with you if you didn't regularly presume to lecture me about Misplaced Pages 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)

Categorisation question

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)

I was considering going ahead with removing the articles in question from Category:American pro-life activists, as there has been no objection since I posted my note on the talk page yesterday, so if you'd disagree with this move, I'd appreciate input. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 02:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Help

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

Andrew, I saw this add and thought of your User page. Cheers. LCP 21:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

http://survey.soc.surrey.ac.uk//public/survey.php?name=wiki_norms

Bugs-Bunny Bunny 16:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Crucifixion eclipse

I just added some cats at Crucifixion eclipse, then noticed that you just deleted some. Feel free to prune what you see fit, I won't contest your edits. 64.149.83.135 21:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Papyrus 45

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)

Re:Signature

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.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My Pleasure

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)

DYK

On 24 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papyrus 45, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin

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 - Misplaced Pages: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)

Really? If I would have been aware of this sooner, I would've been quicker to act, but, I've slipped in my good word. -Severa (!!!) 04:34, 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)

Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Dust Bowl - Dallas, South Dakota 1936.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 05:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 05:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

More questions

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 18:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

RFA

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. Wooyi 23:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Crowning moments

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 Misplaced Pages: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 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

Just thought you might be interested in User:Alastair Haines attempts to push a Protestant POV at Template:Books of the Old Testament, see for example . 75.14.208.224 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' how-to guide and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Misplaced Pages: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)

Congratulations on your recent adminship! I look forward to continuing to work with you in the future. :-) -Severa (!!!) 11:24, 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)

"discussing"

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)