User talk:Sophia/archive3

Your Message on my talk page

Thanks again regarding your concerns on upholding wikipedia policies, you might wanna check out your husband's user page for the same violation.. "Uda Balagena Kela Gahuwoth, it falls on your face" ;-) its suprising that his page is not on your watch list..Mystic 09:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Your husbands user page carries a link to some website, if posting links on wiki is against policies.. you should remove that link.. Shouldn't you Mystic 10:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

OIC I didn't know that.. thanks.. "Umbe Ammata Hukanna" Mystic 16:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community Justice

Welcome to Wikipedia:Community Justice.

Thanks ...

Thanks, Sophia, for standing up for what is right these last few days. IMHO you are one of the "people of good will" mentioned in the liturgy. I hope you have/had a nice Easter with your loved ones. (self-professed) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I was on Wikibreak for much of the recent fracas about personnal information, and I appreciate your work in removing it. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community Justice/Elections

As Wikipedia:Community Justice has over 30 members, we are beginning the elections process.

If you are interested in becoming the chairman, the chief executive or councillor please add yourself, and a statement, to Wikipedia:Community Justice/Elections.

Voting shall begin on April 24th, and end on May 1st. To see if you are eligible for a vote, please see Wikipedia:Community Justice/Elections.

Thank you,

Computerjoe's talk 20:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

CJ election reminder

Hi SOPHIA

I noticed that you are not registered for voting or nomination in the CJ elections, and would like to remind everyone that all Candidates Must Submit Their Statement By April 23rd. Voting will begin April 24th, and end May 1st. More details on how to nominate yourself can be found HERE.

I hope to see you at the elections!

• The Giant Puffin • 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Tea/Cool head

A cup of tea would be nice, thank you. I try not to respond at all on the article on Homeopathy until I've digested for several days as it gets me too upset. Thanks for adding the tag to the Talk page Doc 16:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. Something stronger is usually needed thoughGleng 21:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Double blue trouble

When you get a chance, check Talk:Jesus#No Criticism Allowed and Talk:Jesus-Myth#No Criticism Allowed. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 11:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed a link from Talk:Christianity for the same reason. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipediareview:

About the contacting employer incident. I don't believe it. I think its fake. The one with Gator, I think was real, as he gave details (a letter), etc., but with KMHO3, I think its a stunt. Why no evidence or details? I'm just wondering the details about who contacted whose work place and in what manner?

You might want to sign on there and tell them what you know. If I try, they probably would not listen to me. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 08:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus and Jesus-Myth

My only purpose was to make the pages editable again. I don't know what our policy is on deleting the link, so I won't do that; but I've left a note on the admin's noticeboard so that someone else may do so. -- Eugene van der Pijll 00:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Do me a favor.

Do me a favor: the Christian cabal (you know, the one that doesn't exist) is going to get me blocked for a while and I'm sure they'll be working extra hard to censor the relevant articles during my enforced absence, so please do your best to make sure WP:POV is enforced. Thanks Alienus 12:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Community Justice Voting has Begun!

I see you've registered to vote in the Community Justice elections, and I'm just telling you that now you can vote!

Please cast your vote(s) at Wikipedia:Community Justice/Elections/Voting; following instructions provided there.

Thank you,

Computerjoe's talk 12:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC) (current Chairman)

Jesus and Christianity

Well, I just walked from one firestorm to another by commenting on the Christianity page as well as the Jesus page. Not too healthy. I wish there was a way to cure ill tempers but frankly, I am at a loss. Jim62sch has requested protection for the Jesus page, and I wonder if he should look in on the Christianity page as well.

Ill tempers on the Martin Luther page as well, which I have decided not to get involved with despite my religious convictions. This is all getting to be far too much.

There's nothing wrong with a herd, as long as it doesn't stampede. Well, the cattle are spooked. Not a very healthy situationGrigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 13:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know...

request for full protection

Robsteadman account

Please check Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Robsteadman and contributions from the Robsteadman account today: Robsteadman (talk · contribs). It appears Rob is trying to defend himself against the recent impersonation, and it's not going well. Also he's got into it with Deskana again. If this is not actually Rob, then something is very seriously wrong. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 20:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

He's been temporarily blocked for trolling on my RfA. I try to not be suspicious but I do find it funny that there is a recent surge in activity from his account when someone he doesn't like nominates himself from adminship. --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 20:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Collateral damage. There have been odd things going on lately. Enough for me to flee the Jesus page in mortal terror. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 20:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mortal terror indeed. And the Sith Lords like me are supposed to be the ones doing the terrifying! (Attempting to restore sense of humour :-) ) --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 20:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't exactly gone yet.

"Don't go! You are a model wikipedian in difficult circumstances - we need more of your kind not less! Don't take this a suggestion to use sockpuppets! LOL"

I am flattered as usual. However, as someone who was harrassed out of Wartburg College, I just can't stand to see people harrass others, or treat others with suspicion. It's just become too much.

Besides I noticed on CTSWyneken's RfA that high edit count per article ratios are frowned upon. His was about 9, mine is about 12, so what does that mean? I think I need to diversify. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 23:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I'm taking a wikibreak. Thank you for explaining the situation to Doc Glasgow. Yes, I'm freaked out. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 00:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

See response on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Archola Giovanni33 09:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Short break, but I became frustrated with people at Talk:Jesus either talking past one another, or not recognizing the problem. Anyway, since Gio's been blocked for 3RR, perhaps we could continue the think tank at his talk page? Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 18:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Hi. I was unaware you had reported me at WP:AN/I. I only found out about it. Contrary to your assertions at the time, I never refused to delete the pages in question. In fact I asked the question "Do I have to delete them?" without getting an answer.

Anyway there is further discussion on the matter here if you are interested. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frelke (talk • contribs) .

apologies for the lack of a sig Frelke 19:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the apologies. I have replied in depth here. Frelke 21:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because some moistened bink lobbed a scimitar at me..

It seems I have somehow managed to (almost) run out of topics to argue about. Care to join me at the ever popular and completely un-biased Global Warming Talk? My current POV is that the entire concept was cooked up by Al Gore in order to facilitate a presidential platform in 2008. Or perhaps that it is really an aspect of Global Cooling. ^_^ --Coldbourne 23:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not the grail, the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch!! I figured it would be much more persuasive in arguments. I did not realize you were a Pastafarian, but a penchant for Pirates is sure to be applauded in most circles. --Coldbourne 05:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that you enjoyed the article. Upon reading it I was immediatly rendered tickled pink, and have remained so much to my chagrin, as black is much more my color. Still it is nothing compared to being able to claim that on your page death awaits you all with nasty, big, pointy teeth!!

Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph#Version_5.0

Feedback please. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on my RfA!

File:Danavecpurpletiger.jpg

A belated thank you to you for Supporting my RFA! It passed 54/2/3, much better than I expected! I am still finding my feet as an Administrator, and so far I am enjoying the experience. I am honoured that you felt I was ready to take up this position, and wish to thank you formally! I hope I can live up to your expectations of me. I truly do admire you as a Wikipedian! Thanks ever so much! :-D --Darth Deskana (talk page) --Darth Deskana (talk page) 19:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverting the sock

Not only okay, but very helpful. Thank you. If you see more of that particular kind of editing in the future, feel free to let an admin know. Jkelly 21:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision advocacy

Could you please keep an eye on Circumcision advocacy? I'm having an odd problem with Jakew reverting over and over again in support of Jayjg, but without the least bit of explanation. I've sent him a polite message but I'm not sure if he'll respond productively. Since I've done my 3 reverts, I would hate to imagine that he would be allowed to succeed in removing text simply on the basis of a technicality. One more reason WP:IAR is a good idea! Anyhow, please take a look and do whatever you think is necessary. Al 19:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

While you're at it, take a peek at Mutilation. Al 19:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Sophia, thank you for making the effort to ensure that the text describes the opinions of others, rather than endorsing a particular point of view. I still think that the article is better off without a detailed discussion of various opinions regarding circumcision, but if it must stay, I'm happy as long as it's presented in a neutral, factual, and verifiable manner.

Incidentally, I removed the mention in the second paragraph, as it's inclusion implied that circumcision is a form of (ritual) mutilation. Jakew 16:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, I would urge you to be very cautious about claims and counterclaims on any article connected to circumcision. Be very cautious about those who want to remove information. Consider the possibility that it may be an attempt at censorship. Michael Glass 02:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also urge you to consider the fact that activists typically cry "censorship" the first time WP:NOR is enforced on their pet articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Urging others to assume bad faith seems inappropriate at best. Jakew 13:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, let's talk specifics rather than generalities. Take, for instance this discussion [1], or this [2] and especially these [3] [4]. Everyone has personal agendas; everyone has insights; everyone has blind spots. Urging someone to be cautious is not assuming bad faith; it is just a warning that people are human. Michael Glass 22:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, I have concluded that 'Circumcision Advocacy' should be merged with other articles on circumcision. Michael Glass 04:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus block

It is already being discussed on his Talk: page, isn't it? Do you think it needs to be discussed somewhere else as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought an admin is not supposed to block someone they are in content dispute with? Jayjg and Alienus are in edit disputes, where the comment was made. I thought that in this case Jayig would report it to get another admin. not involved in edit content coflicts to make a decision about puntivitve measures. This ensures objectivity and that the punitive action is not abused as a means to silence an oponent in an article. Also, this allows all other admins to see what is going on, and allows them to comment. On procedure grounds alone, I'd object to the way his one week block was carried out.Giovanni33 02:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not involved in a conflict dispute with Alienus on the article in which he made the personal attack; in fact, I've never edited it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Its really a distinction without a difference. Jakew and yourself have an edit conflict about the content of the politics of cirumcision, no? True most of it takes place on the article about the subject itself, and this incident occured on another article. However, it was about the same issue, subject: circumcision, and with this same person, Jakew, who mutually supports your stance in the circumcision article that is in dispute with Alienus. So, its the spirit of the rule that still applies to this situation. The fact that it happened on another article is not a big enough of a difference given all the important things that are the same, for this important rule to be overlooked.Giovanni33 05:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, we weren't involved in a content dispute. I'm also not involved with Alienus in a content dispute on the Circumcision article. Regarding Jakew, are you now claiming that because someone else is involved in a content dispute with Alienus, and Jakew has also at some point supported my position on something in a different article, that means that I am involved in a content dispute with Alienus? If so, you are stretching the meaning of "involved in a content dispute" beyond any rational bounds. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your nice welcome... Man with two legs 15:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • Same here Sophia for your nice welcome. I was impressed with your interests and your polite professionalism elswhere. I do have a log in name already, which I may use "skullnboner".

--68.146.186.180 05:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)skullnboner

• Thanks for the welcome! Museumfreak 15:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sophia, thank you for the welcome and updates to help me learn the ropes. I'll try the 4 tildas thing and see if I can get it to work. I hope to stay around and am impressed by the creators of this site and their effort to give to the greater community. It was a novel idea. Hopefully I can add some constructive information myself. Cute dogs, I used to have a lab once, they're adorable. Is there any way to send a message other than editing your home page? Somehow I feel like I'm being horribly intrusive.

Thank you,

Bbagot 07:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC) bbagot

Welcome to Esperanza!

Welcome, SOPHIA, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee comprised of JoanneB, FireFox and Titoxd. The next set of elections will be in April, we will keep you updated about the results. Because you are a new member, you are not able to vote in these elections, but you will be more than welcome to take part in the elections in June.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Celestianpower by email or talk page or the Esperanza talk page. Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC Tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

JoanneB 14:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Word association

Thank you for your contributions to the word association games. Please could you only add one word at a time to each game (except Sliding Doors which is a special case), even if more than one word has been added since your last turn. This keeps the game interesting for as many people as possible and allows a greater range of associations. I've removed the second of the two words you added to the Ultra Fixed Word Association: 'Khusaw' game for this reason. Thryduulf 09:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Community Justice Newsletter

Welcome Previously, various notices regarding Community Justice have gone out to our members; though this is the first actual newsletter. This issue will contain information regarding decisions made on the first meeting, our new council, and more...! If you wish to unsubscribe to future newsletters, please add your name to Wikipedia:Community Justice/Do Not Spam. New Council Following our first elections, a new council has been elected.Computerjoe and Ian13 remain as chairman and chief executive (respectively); while Eddieh, Wiki alf and Xchrisblackx are replaced as councillors by Ilyanep, Osbus and Covington. The Giant Puffin and Pureblade remain as councillors. Member Conduct In the last meeting, the conduct of 4 members was discussed. Ethnopunk will be put on probation, supervised by Ian13, if he/she is incivil during this probation, he/she will be expelled from WP:CJ; the same was decided for Misza13 (voluntarily), and his probation will be supervised by Computerjoe. No action will be taken against Computerjoe. Barnstar The Civility Barnstar which our members have designed has been sent to Barnstar and award proposals. We'd appreciate your feedback! Also, we are planning to make a Community Justice barnstar to give to hard-working CJ members. If you're a budding designer, consider trying to make it, then post your proposal to WT:CJ! Name and logo change There has been no consensus reached regarding changing our name and/or logo neither at WT:CJ nor at WT:CJ/M/1. While suggestions are still welcome, no action will be taken at this time. Programs We are going to try to create programs to more actively involve our members. If you have any ideas, please drop a line at WT:CJ. We will try to work with WP:ESP on one of these programs, at some point in the future. Thanks! Thank you for your time. If you need anything, feel free to comment at WT:CJ or come into our IRC channel [5]. Computerjoe wishes to extend his thanks to User:Robchurch, a non-member who assisted in making {{tracker}} redundant, as well as Misza13 for his continued support and to the whole of this and the previous council. This newsletter was delivered by CJBot, written by Computerjoe, with technical help from Misza13. Computerjoe's talk 19:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Your sig

I was wondering if you might please tone down your sig to follow the guidelines laid out at WP:SIG. Really, all a sig needs is to have a link back to your userpage. Large, unwieldy sigs have some pretty hefty drawbacks, the worst being that it tends to overwhelm other text on talk pages. Here is what one of your sig looks like in code form:

[[User:SOPHIA|<font color = "purple">'''Soph'''</font>]][[User:SOPHIA/Esperanza|
<font color = "green">'''i'''</font>]]<font color = "purple">'''a'''</font>
[[User talk:SOPHIA|<small><font color = "purple"><sup>''Gilraen ''</sup></font>
</small>]][[User:Archola/The_Centrist_Fellowship|<small><font color = "blue"><sup>
''of Dorthonion''</sup></font></small>]] 06:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That takes up five lines worth of edit box on my screen. --Cyde Weys 08:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

And I didn't see this coming. Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 08:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's uncivil and highly disruptive to other editors to have gigantic signatures. I'm glad you've endeavored to improve civility on Wikipedia—care to lead by example? — Phil Welch (t) (c) 10:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's WIP - honest. Sophia^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 10:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Appreciated. I trust your discretion on this matter and will leave you to it then. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 10:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually tiz done - I've dropped everything as there seems to be no agreement as to what is generally ok and it's not worth the hassle. I would watch out if I were you as some won't like what you've done either. Sophia 10:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I optimized my sig with some redirects and code optimization. We'll see if people tell me it's too long, the only complaint I received so far is when I left my username out of my visible sig. I had actually dropped the "Arch O. La" to keep my sig from getting too long.

BTW, I finally discovered why Ril was using "Victim of Signature Fascism": apparently he got in trouble for using ~~~~ as his sig.

WP:SIG itself seems to be a work in progress. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

RFC for Phil?

Re: [6] This guy is out of control and needs to be reprimand or removed. If you are interested, we can start an RFC together.Travb 14:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a wonderful idea, I can give at least 5-6 examples of (in my opinion) less-than-stellar conduct. — Nathan ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 01:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

If you need help with these personal attacks and there is no response at WP:PAIN, free free to email me. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Old Home Week!

CTSWyneken has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Hey, good to hear from you. I've been off and about and not hanging at the Jesus page lately. Drop by again anytime! --CTSWyneken 15:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

am I doing this correctly?

Is this the way to send messages to you, Sophia? All these tabs and windows are confusing! Is this where I should ask you specific questions about your wip or should I use regular email? ProfessorG 03:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it Rob?

You often have a good handle on the situation. Is this Rob, do you think? Frelke 06:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I meant to ask you about that yesterday. See here. AnnH ♫ 07:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Seeing that ANI report has got me confused. This user acts totally different to Robsteadman yet appears to edit similar articles. Perhaps I should try interacting with the user and seeing if they decide they inexplicably want to hate me? That was a hallmark of User:Yummy mummy at least, who after me being very nice to decided to hate me (A Robsteadman sock, of course). --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 07:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No Deskana - it's your aftershave that does it! To be honest I'm not sure as whoever it is seems to be on some sort of edit hype - lots of the edits are just wiki linking words but there are quite a few musical ones in there too. Could well be him - or certainly someone local to him. Is Rob actually banned from wikipedia or was it just the old username that he wanted permanently disabled? Sophia 13:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

He is banned. If I was a betting man, I would wager a small amount of money that it is him, trying to prove (to whom I am not sure) that he can behave himself. But I am pretty sure that the powers that be will not allow him back without a lot of rigmarole. Sincere apologies. Promises hat the behaviour will not be repeated. etc etc If it is him it just goes to show that when he stays away from controversial subjects everything is ticketyboo. Frelke 13:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and Zoroastrianism: Monotheisms?

Isn't there a double standard in describing Christianity as, at-best, self-defined monotheism, while making no such equivocation in the the Zoroastrianism article? Yes, nonchristians sometimes see the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three separate gods, but it's also true that nonzoroastrians see Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu as separate gods. It seems to me to be a double standard to call Zoroastrianism a monothestic faith, and to call Christianity a self-defined monotheistic faith. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Like so much else in religion, this is a matter of interpretation. Arguably, Ahura Mazda is a monotheistic diety, while Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu are mere spirits. Arguably, Ahura Mazda is an essence that is too impersonal to worship while the Mainyu's are entities that demand worship. In the second case, the religion would therefore be polytheistic in general, but more relevantly, henotheistic. After all, a worshipper of one Spirit admits to the existence of the other, which they do not worship. Then again, a Christian can worship Jesus while admitting to the existence of Satan, so does this henotheistic aspect mean Christianity isn't monotheistic? It's a mess.

When presented with such a mess, it is not our job to disentangle all the threads. All we have to do is report what people say. If Christians say they're monotheistic, despite worshipping a tripartite deity, the mother of one of those parts, and countless saints and angels, who are we to disagree? And if Muslims say Christianity is not monotheistic, who are we to disagree? We let both parties speak and let the listener decide.

In short, I think that both Christianity and Zoroastrianism should mention monotheism, polytheism and henotheism. Al 17:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Protestants certainly don't worship angels, Mary or the saints, neither do we pray to them. We sometimes accuse Catholics of going too far in their veneration, but Catholics would say that the saints and angels are intermediaries between them and God (and again, there is only one God). Orthodox (Eastern) Christians also venerate the saints, but I know less of them than I do of Catholics.

In fact, a Zoroastrian has come to Talk:Christianity and corrected some of my misunderstanding. Zoroastrians and Christians both profess (different forms of) monotheism, but Christians and Muslims have described Zorastrianism as ditheism, while Muslims have described Christianity as tritheism. Really, who is the more reliable source? It seems rather strange to say of any religion, that what an adherant believes is not what an adherent believes. That just doesn't make sense to me. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It sure does to me, but then again, I've read Dennett's Breaking the Spell and you haven't. :-)

I do understand the official Catholic explanation for how praying to saints and angels isn't polytheistic. I even understand the official explanation for how trinitarianism isn't polytheistic. However, understanding and agreeing are different matters. Both of these explanations split hairs rather finely, and not everyone is going to go along with that sort of thing. It is therefore entirely reasonable for a Muslim to say that, contrary to these explanations, Catholics are polytheists.

Consider that Christians are a reliable source on what Christians profess, not on the truth of their doctrine. Also, consider that there are different kinds of beliefs. If I say I believe in unicorns and act in a manner consistent with this stated belief, it is hard to deny my claim of belief. I can even tell you whether the unicorns I believe in are white, pink or invisible. However, nothing stops you from arguing with me over whether unicorns qualify as horses. That's a matter of how to categorize my belief, which is distinct from its content. You may well conclude that unicorns are only horse-like in appearance, not genuinely equine, and I may well disagree. It is not clear that either of our opinions is authoritative here. Al 18:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I had no problems with saying "Christians profess" (in fact, I suggested it), but others objected. I do think MonkeeSage has a point about getting caught in a metaepistomological trap. It's true that I haven't read "Breaking the Spell," so I don't know how or if the author avoids such metaepistomological traps. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Others objected, but they shouldn't have. The only trap here is in being forced to bias the article pro or con the Christian view, as opposed to neutrally reporting what Christians say.

As for that book, I'd rather not try to compress a few hundred pages down to a sentence, but I would recommend it if you are curious about an objective philosophical and scientific study of religion. If nothing else, Dennett is a clear and interesting writer. Al 06:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Smile

I have every intention of passing it on, just have to find a person in need of WikiLove. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you were right...

...to be concerned over admin abuse of power. Shortly after I was blocked, AJA made 5 reverts in 30 hours and Charles did nothing. This despite warning he gave. Today Charles removed two "personal attacks", one made by AJA, and the other (which I don't think qualifies as a personal attack) made by el Lobo. [7] He then blocked El Lobo for a whole week for "implying bad faith"! And not a word was spoken about AJA's more egregious edit![8]

^^James^^ 17:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Kinda saw this coming. Al 18:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Watch this space - I'm about to assume "bad faith" on Charles Matthews talk page so I suspect this will be the only page I can edit for a while! Sophia 18:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected, if your honest inquiry were misinterpreted as a violation of WP:AGF. Al 18:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope it won't but I am questioning his judgement so - as you have pointed out before - how do you get out of that catch 22? Sophia 18:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally, you don't. Al 18:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Charles has also blocked an anon User_talk:68.146.186.180 with no comment to anybody, even him. ^^James^^ 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

James, check out WP:ANI and search for "lobo". Al 18:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

-

Sophia, I apologize for having posted after being told I was blocked. I will not post again. As for getting an account, I have deliberately resisted because I see it as a means by which a measure of control can be exercised and used to influence how and what gets posted.... besides, I have absolutely no need for a user talk page. I always sign what I post same as those with an account, but am loath to have my identity found out on such a forum. I have had to deal with religious zealots in the past in the real world and am fully aware of how dangerous they can be to oneself and ones loved ones.

12.203.133.199 21:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 04:36 PM CST

-

I can understand wanting to keep real life separate but at least a username will hide your IP address and therefore would be more anonymous than you currently are. You don't need to give out any personal information at all if you do not wish so you could not be traced. As for controlling what you post - in the main I have found all the discussions and guideline/rules to be of value for creating a good stable article - anyway you can always invoke WP:IAR! Sophia 13:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

-

My IP changes with nearly every boot. In my current location, I can be on ant one of four different computers in four different locations and I am also mobile and completely wireless and can be in any one part of the country on any given day. IP's are beyond my control. Can I decline having an user talk page if I join the club? Do I have to give an email address?

The Acharya article has, from the very start, been fraught with chicanery, back door deals and hostility. From the very beginning, it bacame a debate and continues in that vein to this very day.

charles is dead wrong in his assessment that it is not a debate and his optimism that a fair and honest piece is even close to possible. Acharya has challenged belief and belief's response is the very poorly conceived and out of control article we see being posted by an involved admin who has blocked those who would counter his view of it. The deck is and always has been rigged. If you go back and see how many blocks have been imposed on the two sides of the issue, I think you will find that the overwhelming majority will be on the pro-Acharya side. That is not coincidence.

Thanks for your advice.

12.203.133.199 21:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC) -el Lobo 04:10 PM CST

-

You do not have to provide an e-mail address when you register. Your talk page will probably be created by someone welcoming you to the project but you do not have to respond on that page and can add a note to say you will not. You may blank that page whenever you wish as long as you are not removing current warnings or block notices. As long as you log in your IP address will not show so it should actually give you more privacy as it is possible for anyone to check your IP for location via ARIN [9] or other tools. Hope this info helps. Sophia 22:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Awarded

I hereby award you this Barnstar for your untiring efforts in diversifying the Wikipedia. Too long have you gone unrecognized! Coldbourne 22:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Pro-choice.

You might be interested by what's happening on Pro-choice, particularly on the Talk page. Al 04:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

RIP Resurrected unmentionable site

I just noticed that the unmentionable site is down. All that's there now is a directory listing. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 06:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Arch, it's resting, but I don't think that it's found peace. My professional opinion is that it's down temporarily. Al 06:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's also my opinion that the owner of the site is watching all this and will be taking note of the fact that some people are still keeping tabs on what's going on there giving the impression that the site is of some importance. I myself have put it down as the work of a crank and is therefore not worth bookmarking or taking any notice of at all. Sophia 07:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to watch the Watcher, but I suppose it's possible that the Watcher is also watching those of us who watch the Watcher. Even though the Watcher is a crank, the Watcher has caused trouble, but no more on my watch if I can help it. If indeed the Watcher ressurects, I will be there to watch. I hope that isn't too confusing. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 07:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's Monday morning here in the UK and the aabove is too taxing on the 'ol grey stuff for so early in the day (so you should be asleep!)! I do get your point however and I am always watching for any attempt to link back into wikipedia. Sophia 08:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Watching the Watcher gives me insomnia. Besides, I was asleep Sunday afternoon and most of the evening, woke up about 9PM (6 1/2 hours ago); my sleep schedule is seriously FUBAR. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 08:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's back. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 01:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Told you so. Al 05:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That you did. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 06:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and then I showed real class by rubbing it in. And to think that so many people hate me: I can't imagine why! Al 06:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

ZOMG STALKING

Just some friendly stalking with a plate of cookies. — Nathan ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 02:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Smiling

Thanks for smiling at me, smiling right back at you! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian views of Jesus

Since you earlier were involved in some discussion on possibly merging this article, would you come to the Talk page and give some feedback to my suggestion that this article be redirected to Christology? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

CSBIR

I know you've joined WP:CSB, but were you aware of this subproject: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 04:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar and Patrick Holford

Thanks for the barnstar, Sophia. I've been meaning to e-mail you for the last few days, but got caught up in other stuff last night — typing some grammar notes at the computer, with the browser open at Wikipedia at the same time! Will be in touch soon. Did you see my message to Str? I couldn't resist it when I saw yours, and I guess the {{frown}} template will be deleted soon, so I didn't want to wait! I knew he wouldn't mind.

By the way, have you any knowledge of or opinions on Patrick Holford and how reputable he is? I thought you might as you live in the UK, have a scientific background, and are vegetarian (which generally means either an interest in nutrition and health, or an interest in animal rights). If you have any knowledge, you might go to the talk page, where I have requested input. You probably won't agree with me (I know, for example, that you dispute the abortion / breast cancer link), but I'm not really looking for agreement, just information. I'm quite impressed with Holford, but if there are question marks about his credentials, I don't want to give false information, just because I've swallowed his claims. (I believe Gillian McKeith is a bit of a quack.) Anyway, it would be a refreshing change to be squabbling over something other than theology! Cheers.AnnH ♫ 09:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you!

Just wanted to say thanks for speaking up the other day. I think the discussion went well. With more light shone on the situation, I think things will improve. ^^James^^ 19:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

Thanks for adding the Did you buy a porsche yet? bit (and glad you enjoyed the concert) but it's Scarlett Johansson - that was one of a couple of spelling errors in the programe!! Robertsteadman 15:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Concordia Newsletter

Community Justice is no more. It has been reformed to Concordia. Membership has been transferred.

Concordia is an organization of editors on Wikipedia that strive to encourage civility and fair treatment among all editors in the Wikipedian community, from the Wikignome to the Wikiholic. The project was designed to have a friendly and helpful environment to support any unfortunate Wikipedians that have become victims of incivility, hostility, or continual disrespect.

We currently need help in getting going, and making the community understand our aims. We work for civility. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you have ideas, let us know at our talk page, or on the IRC channel. We aim to spread civility in every way we can.

Should you wish to unsubscribe to future newsletters, please add your name to Wikipedia:Concordia/Do Not Spam.

Thank you for your time. If you need anything, feel free to comment at WT:CCD or come into our IRC channel [10].

- The Concordia council. Delivered by Ian13 13:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Overpopulation

Sophia,

There's no need to thank me really. I was just doing a minor clean up, while you were the one that re-wrote the section. Good work, Chooserr 17:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Errr...that should be Gay Rights Opposition. As you can see my head is somewhere else as well :) Chooserr 17:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Castleton peaksholewater.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Castleton peaksholewater.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hermeticism Vandalism

It's interesting that it stood for 40 minutes, and you reverted seconds before I had the chance to. :)

KV 00:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

God

• I knew that. I was just being a smart-ass. ;) Danny Lilithborne 06:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

nugget

e-mail me at slrubenstein at yahoo dot com if you want to discuss this offline Slrubenstein | Talk 11:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Your revert to Italian cuisine

Hi, you just reverted vandalism to this article. Unfortunately the vandal had put in two edits and your reversion using popups missed the first edit so left some vandalism in. Just wanted you to know that you had missed the earlier edit. I have now fixed it. --MarkS (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I had this problem when I used popups. Its one of the reasons I have since swapped to using VandalProof which catches this sort of thing. --MarkS (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sunken-relief1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sunken-relief1.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review of List of tongue-twisters

I'm notifying you because you voted recently at Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of tongue-twisters. Since your vote, additional information (merely, the fact that the content was transwikied to Wikiquote) has emerged. I'd therefore like to ask you to revise (or confirm) your vote in light of this additional information. Thank you, and sorry for bothering you about his. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Refusal to delete

Sophia, you know I did not refuse to delete. I asked User:AnnH if I had to tell her why I had the copies. She never responded. I have never refused to do anything asked of me on WP. In fact if you check here and your own talk page you will note that I was the one who suggested that the offer should be made to the new Rob that he be accepted back into the fold in return for a promise of good behaviour.

You also know that I was not in a position to delete those pages as this is only something that could be done by an admin. I expressed an opinion (which I know you don't share) about Rob at a time when he was certainly p***ing off a lot of people.

I would really appreciate if you would modify your comment on User talk:Syrthiss to indicate that I didn't refuse to delete the pages. Pls WP:AGF. Frelke 19:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for my first Barnstar

Sophia, thank you for your kind remarks and my first Barnstar! That was thoughtful. I can get testy and have tried to pull back on some of my caustic side; your acknowledgement makes me want to try harder to be firm, but civil in my communications. You are one of our best. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't think you are paying attention

You put on my talk page:

Please discuss on the talk page before making major edits to Homosexual agenda as this is a contentious subject. Sophia 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not make any major edits. I was reversing some major edits. Would appreciate if you would self revert that page back in recognition of that fact. --72.13.168.149 00:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How very nitpicky of you. It's changing the content of an article in a major way, therefore a major edit. Whether or not it was a revert or not is irrelevant. This comment is not an endorsement of any edits to this article. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deskana. You may not be aware of what was going on. There was an LONG extended discussion - going on 4 weeks now, coming to concensus. Someone went and unilaterally made a change. Without concensus. The change was not a bad change but it was without conscensus. I reverted it back. Sopia then reverted my revert. And apparently without good cause given the concensus issue I just mentioned.--72.13.168.149 21:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sophia said:

I preferred Al's version and at that point you hadn't posted on the talk page so I'm afraid I wouldn't self revert if I could (my edit summary was quite accurate). As it is things have moved on anyway it looks like we will be discussing our differences of opinion on this there. See you on the talk page! Sophia 07:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I generally preferred Alienus version also. But that is irrelevant. He posted without concensus. Do I really need to go on the talk page and say "You posted without concensus" when I can say that just as easily on the edit -- and it is more clear? It is clear that my position was accruate if you look at what happened subsequently. You were simply being biased and ignoring the prior work or the need for concensus -- which has been a big deal for several weeks. Why would someone who is so dedicated to the principles of wikipedia, as you claim to be, do that? You complained that I did not discuss it on the talk page. But you also did not discuss it on the talk page. So did you violate your own rule? Furthermore Alienus did not originally discuss it on the talk page either. So did he violate your rule and was I actually supporting the position you have claimed? I would not bother to discuss this further except that I believe you did this as some sort of personal favor rather than as an objective editor. Certainly your actions were biased. And I think that is wrong. --72.13.168.149 21:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I said "This comment is not an endorsement of any edits to the article". That counts for your reverts, other people's edits, other people's reverts etc. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. I never thought it was. I thought you were simply being critical of me without a cause. Is there some reason that I should think otherwise?--64.178.145.150/72.13.168.149 06:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sophia wrote: You are an anon IP who at the time of your revert had not participated in the talk page as far as I can see. You made a change I didn't agree with and I asked you to take it to the talk page. I haven't mentioned the word "concensus" at all. In the past I have reverted Al and we do not always agree with each other, we edit on different articles even though we do cross over quite a bit but I only ever make edits I feel are justified - NEVER as a "personal favour". I'm sorry if you are annoyed at my revert but you need to participate on the talk page and discuss it there - I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make with all this but please be assured that I am not Al's spare reverts - I have contributed to the discussions on the talk pages and simply have an interest in making the article NPOV. Sophia

Yes I am an anon (thats a decision I have made but it does not make me stupid or evil). I have participated in the discussion, though it might be hard to tell (I find no fault there). Perhaps I made a change you did not agree with but did you bother to read the talk page first? Weeks had gone by and we were working to concensus. Alienus comes by and makes changes that he admits he did not vette on the talk page. Note that again: He did not vette them on the talk page; that is the very thing you were upset by BUT YOU WERE SUPPORTING THAT VERY ACT - an act you proclaim to disagree with - even though you do not use the word "Concensus" (Do you really disagree with that concept?) The reverts (and I was not the only one who did that) were to bring it back to what was previously agreed upon and then those changes -- WHICH I AGREED WITH -- could be discussed. That is all. The annoyance was not that you reverted but that you did so CONTRARY to the talk page. This was VERY CLEAR if you had taken just a moment to read the talk page and my comment. Yet you claim to be working for the good of wikipedia.

Your behavior did not seem to match the actions that I would imagine someone who has that common good as a true intent. And there is no doubt that you and Alienus are "wikibuds". You have even gone to his talk page to discuss your edit wars in the past, and he has shown up on that page to support you. Then you thank him. And though you claim to have disagreed with him, I can only find instances where you support him, sometimes making fun of other wikipedians that you both disagree with on his page. That's public. Sure you have contributed on the talk page. What were those contributions? Three that I can find. Your first contribution was to say "Al is right". Your largest contribution to date was to chastise me. So it is not exactly like you are unbiased.

So you understand that this is not simply a curmudgeonly annoyance on my part, let me be very clear: When people are seriously working hard to play by the rules -- actively trying to support the rules as described in all of the WP links and the intent by Jimbo, and then they get stepped on in the process (by administrators no less) it is troubling. Why should people obey the rules here if that just leads to being shoved aside? Why try to be a good wikipedian when its not really about seeing both sides and seeking what is best but its about building alliances and "besting" the other side instead? That is the position I find myself in. I have been a user and a long-time financial supporter of Wikipedia but only recently started editing. I have "bought in" to the vision, but there are so many agenda's here I have developed doubts that my naive optimism was valid. I was heartened by the discussion on that page (as you can see from my comments there) but this edit war suggests to me that my doubts about human nature are more confirmed than denied -- and I wish deeply that you were not part of that decline. --64.178.145.150/72.13.168.149

You Found It!!!!

Good job, finding my hidden not very well page. Congrats! Thetruthbelow 22:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Peter morrell

Could you please step in and give peter some advice and support on homeopathy - he's still new to rules/processes/mechanics and could do with some wise guidanceGleng 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the beer!

Hehehe... thanks for the beer. So far I've only had 1 exam... Statistics 2... and it was pretty straightforward stuff. I'm hoping for a high A on that so I can go easier on the Further Pure Mathematics. The vectors stuff drives me insane. Even though S2 was straightforward I still get that "oh my god, I think I might have mucked it up feeling". I'm sure it'll pass. Anyway, thanks! :-) --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Beer? You're giving out beer? I'm sure Deskana deserves beer, but why wasn't I told about the Free beer??? *mutter mutter growl whine* KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

BEER

Have some then! Hehehe... --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much, you have no idea how much I needed that today! KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ...

Thanks for the heads up. I have amended my quotations section. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Heads up

I'm away for a week in the States so can't do anything just now; will take a look when I get back. Peter is very knowledgeable on the history side and writes very well, and can characterise the homeopathy side better than I was able to, though I tried. A lot of what I learnt was actually from Peter's articles on the web. Peter just needs to get used to WP policies and ethos and to get accustomed to the fact that V RS and WP policies are ultimately essential for stability and balance in the outcome, and don't imply a POV, and get used to working with people of different views rather than against them (like we all have to learn this). At present the science section doesn't seem under real threat; if it does get threatened there will be a storm for sure as it's gently understated at present, and the issues and phrasing in that section have gone through a long and tortured time, so any change there is sure to reopen wounds. I'll take a closer look when I get back. Good luck :)Gleng 21:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on C.S. Lewis quote

Hey Sophia,

It is my position that the C.S. Lewis quote on the Jesus page does not conflict with any WP Policies and is excellent for that place.

I have posted a longer explanation on the Jesus talk page. standonbible 14:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Having looks briefly at your blog I'm not at all surprised we don't agree on this. Sophia 14:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What was the intention of that statement? Everyone holds their own "POV" - you and me included. But since we are not disputing facts our POVs are irrelevant here. standonbible 14:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We obviously have very different views on lots of things so we will disagree on this. What is important is to stick to the talk page and see what the community feels and which one of us is closer to NPOV. Sophia 14:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus

thanks - that's all, SR Thanks, again. He won't chase me away from the debate. But this is a case where we need more than three people being vigilent. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Barn

Thank you for the barnstar. I only wish I could have avoided the circumstances that allowed me to earn it. Al 23:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by!

It's good to hear a friendly voice after being in the Martin Luther pages wilderness these past few weeks! --CTSWyneken 00:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

That was my blog. It was originally a wiki entry, but I was told to put it on my own site and link it here. I am restoring the link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.45.197.97 (talk • contribs) .

Your IP seems to vary so I'll reply here and hope you see this. You really need to read WP:NOR and WP:RS to get an idea of the sort of links that are allowed. Personal blogs should not generally be used, especially when the content was not considered suitable for wikipedia. I appreciate that you have valid points to make and this is not a condemnation of your ideas but you need to find academic, verified, reliable sources for your ideas and then quote those. I will help find the sources if you explain which concepts you think are missing from the article. Hope you understand that this is not personal but about constructing a quality article. Sophia 07:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Already in intro"

Hi. In re this edit, the intro part of our articles is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. It is generally encouraged to not have the lead present information that is not in the rest of the article. Jkelly 21:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Theological Link

"This item requires a subscription* to The Journal of Theological Studies Online." I'll see if I can get it some other way, but thanks.

KV(Talk) 22:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider

I'm thinking of nominating User:Storm Rider for Adminship. He's done a good job at keeping a level-headed conversation going on controversial religious topics, I believe. He would be a good asset to the religious corner of the wiki. Would you support that action based on your work with him? Please let me know on my talk page. -Visorstuff 19:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Your advice as a Neutral Observer

Sophia, would you take a look at the current exchange on Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies and give me your opinion. I wouldn't dream of asking you to wade into that hornet's nest, but it would be helpful to me if you would comment on my talk page whether I'm being crazy, or not, and whether my approach is helpful. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 20:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Registration

I just thought the irony irresistable. Vaquero100 21:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews

Thank you! I don't know that it's necessary at this time. If it becomes more heated, I'll ask you to drop by again. Since I know you well enough to know you'll side with the other folk if you agree with them, you may well be the ideal mediator.

This is an emotional issue because I love Luther (duh!) and his theology, but he, like many geniuses, was prone to think people who don't get it (in their view) He had a horrid temper, was proune to using his great skill in boiling polemic. Unfortunately, he unleashed it upon the Jews, too. The list of his recommendations sounded so much like Hitler's earliest actions that the Nazis, that the Nazis latched on to his work. This does not exactly endear him to the Jews. (double duh!) In the constant conflict on the Luther pages, our tendancy is to speak as little about it as possible and my Jewish friends (and I mean that in almost all cases) as much as possible. As with everything else, the answer is somewhat in the middle.

On the issue, let me give you my take on what the research says. Luther's friends successfully kept the work obscure. Luther himself lobbied until his death for the banishment of Jews to Israel, with limited success. This leads me to believe that, like most of his polemic, almost all of the venom was for rhetorical effect. In fact, he employed one baptised Jew as a messenger and put up his children in his own home (less impressive than it sounds. His residence was a decommissioned monastery). He had a habit of doing this kind of thing, even interceding for an anabaptist enemy of his when the man was on the run.

The work saw a few brief revivals in the 20-50 years after Luther's death. The work then lapsed into obscurity, appearing only in scholarly editions of Luther's works and very rarely cited. Much more popular was his That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew. This remained the state of affairs until genetics and anti-semitism combined into racism and the precursors of Nazi ideology. The Nazis revived the work.

The Wallmann article documents this take, more or less. The problem is that it sounds to the other side as a whitewash. The exclusion sounds like us as an attempt to make Luther fount and source of all antisemitism and dismiss his work as that of a raving lunatic.

So, please run away. Far away! 8-) --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 23:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you are loyal to friends -- just more loyal to the truth! 8-) --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 21:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

July Firefly Issue!

The July 2006 issue of the Firefly WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. plange 17:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Image.gif

Please see Image talk:Image.gif. --Joy [shallot] 18:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. --Joy [shallot] 18:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom or RFC?

I agree, I think an RFC is the next appropriate step. To go straight to arbcom is unusual, and only furthers the impression that Al is being unfairly treated by over zealous admins. I am not saying there is no legitimate concern. Al can be abrasive and needlessly inflammatory. But an RFC is the next logical step. It can be argued here. Note that arbcom members have already agreed to accept the case before Alienus has even made a statement. Yet if you look at other cases on the page, they take their time. It makes it look as though he is being fast tracked. From what I understand, this is very unusual except in extreme cases. ^^James^^ 18:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Alienus is of particular value to wikipedia. Editors willing to confront zealous partisans on controversial articles are rare. It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. Otherwise the sheer doggedness of partisan editors will win every time. It's a systemic flaw, which is why controversial articles can get so ugly and heated. There is no real recourse unless someone stands up to them... but then they are accused of being half guilty since it takes two to tango - even if they were working steadfastly towards NPOV while the other side was decidedly not. Anyways, you know all this. It would be a shame if you decided to leave, as I think you are very fair minded and moderate. ^^James^^ 20:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I sent you an email. :) ^^James^^ 07:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• It is our job in an RfC to demontrate to the user why the community feels their behavior needs to change and for the editor concerned to explain why they behave as they do. To make it a precondition that they assume guilt before the process can even start is a demonstration of injustice of the highest level. I would ask you to examine your motives in this case and ask whether you are not just getting the rope ready to hang a dog who you think has a bad name? Sophia 08:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, RfC is a method of gathering community input on a user. So is An/I. After the recent An/I on Alienus, which had as many participants as most RfCs, he wrote on his talk page that he hadn't done anything wrong. He made no attempt to refute the specifics, just denied everything as if he'd done nothing wrong. This isn't about establishing past guilt, it's about changing future behavior. I support whatever it takes to help Alienus be a better editor. If he said that he's willing to believe that he may be wrong and that the community may be right, that calling people names and picking on their personal details qualifies as a personal attack, then I'd be happy to even forego an RfC. All I care about is the outcome. -Will Beback 09:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, that's incorrect. I was unable to respond to the AN/I directly, and even my attempt to respond indirectly was thwarted. This means the AN/I was not a replacement for an RfC. Al 09:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What response would you like to make to the charges that you've engaged in peronsal attacks and incivility that you haven't had a chance to make? The thread is still active. -Will Beback 09:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

None at this time, as it would be premature. Aside from the one case of calling someone an edit warrior for edit-warring, the community has not seen fit to provide me with diffs showing such attacks. That's part of what an RfC is for.

Also, while the thread is nominally active, there's so much incivility in it that I'd be afraid to wade into the mess. Al 09:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As things currently stand and with the current level of clear fair thinking not being shown I think you are very wise Al. Sophia 09:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battlegound, James. Your statement "editors willing to confront zealous partisans on controversial articles are rare", presuposses two things: (a) Wikipedia content policies do not work, hence the need for people like Alienus and (b) The only way to deal with such "zealots" is to resort "stand up" to them. Both these are assessments are very disturbing and explains what has happened with Alienus, and his inability to see the problems he has created for himself. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The real world suffers with these "zealots" despite societies rules so what makes wikipedia immune? And yes on partisan topics someone like Al can break the grip some editors have on certain topics by not backing down - remember it always takes two parties to edit war. I have been bullied on several topics and my reaction has been to walk rather than dig my heels in. Good for my mental health but not good for the encylopedia. What would Jimbo say I wonder? Sophia 15:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Wikipedia is not immune, thus its content policies, dispute resolution processes, and demands from editors to be civil and respectful. Resorting to some kind of edit vigilantism, is not a solution, but an exacerbation of the problem. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

When a partisan reverts every attempt someone makes to get well-cited, neutral content onto a page, most people just give up. This is probably wise, in that it minimizes conflict and avoids the risk of getting blocked. Unfortunately, it also leaves Wikipedia in a sorry state.

My first block came after I tried RfM's, RfC's and RfA's to get a guy named Loxley to stop misrepresenting and slandering a philosopher named Daniel Dennett, and none of these official content resolution steps worked. In the end, he refused to discuss his changes in Talk and just kept reverting every attempt I made at fixing things, to the point where he'd created a parallel, POV-laden version of the article.

Frustrated by the failure of the system and determined not to allow Loxley to poison an article that nobody else seemed to care about, I started fixing the problems and every time he reverted me, I just reverted back. The revert war blew up to truly stupid proportions and we both got quite justifiably blocked. I took one for the team by following WP:IAR and he finally fled. The article has been neutral and stable since, with other editors participating amicably.

Am I endorsing edit warring as a solution to POV? No. Am I recognizing that the dispute resolution process is often an abject failure? Absolutely. It failed me on Cartesian theater, way back then, and now it's failing me by rushing into a doomsday RfAr that will end my participation in Wikipedia, allowing all those POV warriors to take a breath of fresh air, knowing that it'll be one bit easier for them to have their fun at Wikipedia's expense. Al 17:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So we both agree that the rules serve the community and are the best way to ensure the smooth running of the project. The only vigilantism I have seen is the attempt to hijack process by skipping important steps such as an RfC to speed along to the lynching they obviously want. I do not bend the rules to suit. Sophia 17:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody wants a "lynching". Provocative language like that doesn't help resolve disputes. -Will Beback 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I take this from the generalised RfAr template...

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried. If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

That allows for skipping an RfC if there is a way of proving that it would have been fruitless. I don't know Alienus well enough to say if that is the case here? Something for you to think about, anyway. --Lord Deskana (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Sophia, for the Barnstar. It means a lot to me, especially in rather heated times like these and especially from an editor, who knows how to combine disagreement with respect. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Lynching

• Polite language is getting ignored and brushed aside as some try to bypass due prosess to achieve the justice they "know" the community wants...

A) There's no excuse for using impolite language, except for instances where a weight has been dropped on one's toe. B) You are assigning duplicitous motives to your fellow editors. I have seen this in many of your talk page posts. Saying that people are really doing one thing while intentionally saying another thing is very close to calling those people liars or cheats. Please assume good faith and act in a civil manner toward other editors, even if engaged in an edit war or a personal dispute.

• It was only another fearless editor who shook things up a bit...

What is the objective difference between a bully, someone who "shakes things up" fearlessly, and an editor who breaks 3RR repeatedly and calls people names?

• Better than that the knowledge base of the group changed and we all learned new things. The attitude changed as well..

Yes, there can be productive editing disputes, where material is added, cross-checked, and NPOV is improved.

• ...some very unimaginative people who the project could lose with no net effect on the articles at all.

Every editor gained or lossed changes the project. But saying that other editors are useless is not helpful. How would you feel if someone said that about you? Also, "imagination" is not high among the requirements for encylopedia editors, in fact it is probably a detriment if it becomes a factor in editing.

• If the project is hell bent on avoiding all conflict then the most beligerant determined POV will dominate the article everytime. I will not effectively condone this and so my position here will be untenable.

Wikipedia is full of conflict. But we require that the conflict be conducted in a civil manner according to project norms. There many good ways of dealing with POV pushers and article owners; calling them names or speculating darkly about their real motives are not among them. If enforced civility doesn't seem like a good idea to you then that's ok (we can still be friends), but civility is a core policy of this project and it will be whether you like it or not. If you decide to leave then I'm sure you'll be missed, and you'll always be welcome so long as you follow our policies and guidelines.

• ...this community needs to be able to successfully "train" people in how to collaborate productively in a way that is completely new...

We're trying. Collaboration is a two-way street and we have many one-way drivers. Wikipedia may be new, but the principles are old and well known. "Treat others as you'd like to be treated" is always a good practice. I think we try to be patient though we do sometimes give up on training people who don't seem to learn. For example, if a user deletes a warning without a response then it appears as if that user isn't interested in learning. A user who is interested in learning would reply, "Oh, I hadn't realized I'd broken a rule" or, "You're right, that was a mistake" or even, "This warning is incorrect because the edit really meant something else". Ignoring complaints isn't learning.

Anyway, I know you made a bunch of other good points in your long letter. sorry I only have time to address these. Cheers, -Will Beback 07:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)