User talk:Alastair Haines/Archive 4

Tolerance and Objectivity
Dr. Haines (if I may call you that since you'll be getting your PhD soon) you are a breathe of fresh air. I am surprise to find a pastor (especially a christian) who is so tolerant as you are. Futhermore, you are really nice, which is also exceptional amongst religious folk. I actually come from a fundementalist christian upbringing but now I am agnostic at best (atheist at worst). I think we could have some interesting discussions on religion. That's the irony of it, I am utterly nonreligious if not antireligious, yet I love dialogue, discussions and studies of religion and philosophy. Go figure. Actually, despite your christian pursuasion, I have a great deal of respect for you, I'm just that way toward folks with doctoral degrees. Keep up the good work, wikipedia editor. 72.49.203.96 06:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Joshua
 * Lol, God bless you Joshua! No harm in me saying that even if he doesn't exist! Thanks for the encouragement. My personality is always evolving, I give God the credit for that when they are good changes. I think I understand a little of your background. It can be heartbreaking (or maddening) when people try so hard to please God, that they forget the Bible promises failure and forgiveness, even more than it encourages noble efforts. Anyway, I'll keep out of your personal stuff, if you keep out of mine! And, may I say, "Amen" to your "prayer" that open-minded discussions multiply on Wiki talk pages, to the benefit of articles and readers. Alastair Haines 06:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal stuff? My life is an open book, my friend. I may be godless but I am far from without morals and virtues. I believe honesty is the foundation of a relationship, especially friendships. Even though I am not religious, I recognize that all of humanity descends from the same two parents and I absolutely affirm the teachings of Jesus, "thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment"; in addition to the second, "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". The reality is, you can't have one without the other, for example, a person cannot love God as Jesus commanded if this individual hates his fellow brothers and sisters. Paul says "Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away." Jesus defined who and what a christian was, and that a requirement of being a christian was love, not just for fellow christians but reconciliation with all humankind. He said "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." You look at the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) who has killed more people than any other single branch of Christianity, look at their history of executing heretics and apostates in the middle ages, and you see very clearly, they did not follow the teachings of Jesus, nor were they christian. They were infact, antichristian. So yes, I beleive in the principle of love in the world and it's power to revolutionize. Despite my lack of religion, I do actually follow a very strict code of morality. I am also very open to finding God if it ever happens. Don't think all atheists are godless immoral and materialistic. 72.49.203.96 07:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Joshua
 * I really, really like what you say. Yes, love is what matters, and true love is never opposed to truth. Seek true love and you find truth. What's the point in finding truth if you don't find love. I'm much better at logic than love, but I'm far from perfect in either. Anyway, thanks for what you say. You have a sharp mind, wedded to a strong heart (that's my impression at least). There are many great writers with these characteristics, in all traditions, and worth reading. Quality philosophical ethics seems to be more rarely written these days, but it's not my field. Perhaps I need to get involved. Maybe you'll pursuade me. :) Alastair Haines 07:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Help getting started
Dr. Haines I am the one who opened a post 'Is the Bible Religious Writtings?' As you read my post you could see that I'm a poor writer. The frist thing replied back was a gigg in that I didn't sign my post and some other stuff. I used 'contact us' link and asked for help, but the respondent said he couldn't via e-mail. I recontacted my contact and pasted the section were I was gigged and also asked if it would be ok to contact you like I'm doing now and ask for help. Would you help me? I have been very busy lately a wasn't able to spend the time on my post. I still don't know how to sign my replies or to do whatever else I should do. I looked backed at the post and see that interest has faided and it seems to be concluded that that topic just isn't worth it. I can indeed explain/show that the Bible is NOT religious writtens. Should I work up a paper in MSWORD and go back to the post and paste it? Word has spell check which I need very much. I hate to say it but I really need someone to hold my hand till I know my way around this web site. Ifn I can just get started I would be very thankful. cncdavellc


 * Hi Dave!

To sign a message, just use ~.

I'm adding a welcome to your user page, back soon. Alastair Haines 00:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Three things
Hi, Alistair. Thanks for the note. In response:
 * 1) Unfortunately, I don't have a Hebrew keyboard at work or at home, so I would have to copy the letters one-by-one off of an existing page. Sorry.
 * 2) I'm a casualty actuary, not a life actuary, so I really don't use APL. :)
 * 3) I'll try and drop by sometime soon; thanks for the info.

Thanks again, -- Avi 14:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Supersessionism
I'm not so much a theologian, and I'm not really aware of any on Wikipedia. I suppose all the Jewish theologians are busy at their real jobs. It's just a bunch of laymen with some areas of expertise, as far as I know. I'll take a look at the article and see if anything pops out at me.

Thanks for noticing Mishnah. I was really happy with that one, though I never got around to dealing with all the various pages it links.

If you want to see something really awesome, check out Sefirot. --Eliyak T · C 18:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

copyright on images
I guess it has to do with whether the original image was published as well as taken before 1923. Anyway Wikipedia talk:Copyrights is the place to go. I haven't a clue about who Grenfell is other than what I just read on his bio on WP aobut 45 seconds ago. Have yuo seen the pic published before? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

pick a journal ... any journal
Hi Alastair, could you pick a Theology journal for a CotW ; enter it under "Nominations for future CotW:" in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic_Journals. Thanks.

p.s. I moved User:Alastair Haines\Draft Guideline to User:Alastair Haines/Draft Guideline; is it OK if I delete User:Alastair Haines\Draft Guideline now? John Vandenberg 00:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks and thanks. Yes and yes. I'll have a Journal name on your talk page within the hour. Alastair Haines 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Journal of Biblical Literature is an excellent choice; could you add it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic_Journals with a sales pitch. :-) Can you get your hands on some early(pre-1923) articles published in this journal, so that we can add them to Wikisource ? John Vandenberg 01:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, leave some work for the rest of us to do! Ideally, you should upload onto Wikimedia Commons the images of pages that will be placed onto Wikisource.  This allows everyone to help with the OCR/transcribing, formatting and proofreading.  See s:Help:Side by side image view for proofreading.  Commons accepts PDF and DJVU files as well, if you find any of those.  If you need any help with the  project, email me.  If you can get your hands on the first issue (1882) or other related documents of the society that predate the first issue, I am happy to do the transcription of those. John Vandenberg 02:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont see any uploads by commons:Special:Contributions/Alastair_Haines. :-)  How are you going scanning articles from the PD issues?  Do you want the collaboration to begin next week, or the following week ? John Vandenberg 04:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, it's written in indelible wiki-ink on WP:AJ. :-) John Vandenberg 05:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good the hear we will have some transcription to do next week. I've created a subpage WP:AJ/Transcription for our efforts on that, and JBL is now listed there.  Update that page when you have uploaded new images.  To simplify uploading large numbers of images, you may want to try Commonist. John Vandenberg 05:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you find the page scans? John Vandenberg 12:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The web is a terrible place! Our best collaboration so far, Astronomische Nachrichten, was largely sourced using Google Books and original journal pages, both from AN, and other journals in the same field that record details of the changes of the guard at AN. John Vandenberg 13:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lilith
Alastair, Now we're trying to sort out Lilith's contribution to Vampire lore as Spawn Man and I are working up Vampire for a crack at FA sometime. Tried to figure out most salient points from Lilith's article page and seeing what should be in vampire text, however my middle eastern knowledge is considerably rustified and heavily influenced by Dungeons and Dragons....Would you know which refs apply to paras 2 and/or 3 in the Ancient beliefs section on the Vampire page? Also, there's a bit here we took out until we could ref it (if it were possible)...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

PS: I meant to add, are you going to try and work something up for FAC at some stage? Want a hand? I'm beginning to read The Age of Reason which is at FAC at the moment.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks muchly - all help in phrasing and analysing it correctly much appreciated. Part of the joy is having someone knowledgeable in an area to realise when an explanation, though referenced, may be somewhat far-fetched and/or counterintuitive. Sometimes folks love making the links when the evidence is not unfortunately substantial enough. Anyway, we're in your hands for that bit. I've also got a really cool book by welsh psychoanalyst Ernest Jones on the meaning of vampires which I will add when I have had (a) a good nights' sleep and (b) some free time :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comments to ShiraHadasha
I happened to be glancing at User:Shirahadasha's talk page and wanted to say thank-you for your comments re: Hebrew bible/Tanakh. They were refreshing and wise. I can only hope they are heard. Best of luck, Egfrank 16:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

I realize you originally started the Hebrew Bible article and feel that its original intent has been displaced.

I would agree that the present Tanakh, Old Testament, Hebrew Bible, and Bible articles present a certain amount of overlap and opportunities for confusion and/or POV forking, and these articles might usefully be consolidated and/or have their raisons d'etre better articulated so editors will have a way of understanding what sort of material should be on each. I would think any plan to do so would require discussion on WikiProject Bible with notice to the relevant religion Wikiprojects etc. Since there is already a reorganization proposal underway at Talk:Bible, perhaps you might want to offer your own.

Best, --Shirahadasha 16:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, I didn't start the article, not by years I expect.
 * Not only that, I'm not happy with the lead. It retains text I think has a Jewish perspective bias. I've taken the extremely time consuming expedient of researching Supersessionism prior to considering how that text should be altered. But a few lines that suggest the POV inaccuracy that HB exists to stop Christians from imposing supersessionist language is something I can tolerate until I've got all the refs. Complete replacement of the article by Tanakh information is another thing altogether. Bad strategy at Wiki. Technically incorrect. Procedurally flawed -- rv cited text etc etc. But it's the inaccuracy of it that concerns me most.
 * It's worth remembering, from outside the Jewish community, I would be perceived as being very biased in favour of Judaism. But I don't write from my perspective. Look at the Supersessionism article if you like. I'm not a Catholic or Dispensationalist, nor a Covenant Theologian, but I wrote up all those views.
 * Finally, there comes a point in discussion where I have to politely remind people that allusions to my motives are inadmissable in Wiki debate. They can't be proven for a start. They are also irrelevant. The issue is, what is HB, and what text presents it best to a reader. Note that I do not attribute bias to other editors, even when the evidence would be read that way by almost any third party. Such things are discipline issues. That's your business as admin. I'm a content guy and I stick to it. Alastair Haines 16:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the Bible Religious Writtings?
Dr. Haines

I think I just edited someones elses note to you. Sorry. It's at the bottom of the top comment post. Sorry again. I'll rewite it here. Boy do I feel dumb. I was asking for help in using this web site. I'm just lost when it comes to writing and working my way around this web site. I'm sorry but I've been very busy lately and was not able to spend more time on my post. I just looked back at it and it seems like interest has faided and it's thought that it doesn't merit any more effort and should be closed. If a count was made as to the Bible being Religious Writtings the score would be billions to one. I can show how and why it's not. When I looked at the replies to my post I was a little disapointed in that no one picked up any thread that I left. I can write up a paper in msword and give chapter/verse as the thread moves along. As I wouldn't be able to use an hyperlynks I'll have to copy/paste all of them. It won't seem much like a discussion though. Would you be willing that I do that here in your comment section and you could comment on it? How do I get your responce? I'll look back here I guess.Cncdavellc 00:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Dave

Vampire
Hmmm..I can't see anything which says why it should be blocked to you. The protection log has it as still only semi-protected and no-one has made it full-protected. Taxobox is amusing idea :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * can't see that you have any existing blocks either...can you try again and see waht happens? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Religious Writings
Alastair

Hello. I tried to attach something to my post last night. thought it was there but this am it's not. Went to the instructions lokks like I followed them but guess not. I wrote a reply in msword and copy/pasted it. I'll do the same here. Thanks for your help.

Hello again. If it’s okay with everyone I’ll backup somewhat to make more clear where I’m coming from. At times I perused Wiki and liked it very much. Thank you very much. Out of curiosity I searched ‘Bible’ and the first line was ‘Bible refers to the canonical collections of religious writings’. Well, I know that the Bible is not religious writings. So I thought to be helpful I would correct this error. I was unaware then that to correct this error with a Bible study type approach is not in line with Wiki policies. My bad. The first response was corrections re: signing my name/got that…. registering/?.....colons to indent/?.....study WP:NPOV/did that. Having to rethink the error of ‘religious writings’ and staying within the Bible and Wiki policies I thought I had an answer but I don’t. The only way I see now to explain this would be viewed as POV or OR. When at times I talked with people and set straight an error it was always coming from a religious POV to a truth. The search for truth is not within the scope of this forum. I’m the one in error being here and I don’t fault this site or anyone who participates in it. I’m just not in the right place.

tnx againCncdavellc 08:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sexual dimorphisms in the brain
Alastair - I had not considered this before. Do you mean biological differences between male/female brains? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahaaa...now that debate I have some ideas on but I dare not plaec them on a public forum such as a WP talk page. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

More distractions...
This is quite a fun read too...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely doable - needs thorough inline reffing. I began working on (1) pop culture stuff (2) formatting quotes etc. and (3) looking at the lead. If you have refs for much of the body it could be good....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Take your time, we're busy as well...you interested in being an admin at some stage? I'd be happy to nominate.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I find protection pretty easy and very useful - if I see a largish page vandalised by multiple anon IPs more frequent than daily then I'll protect (trawling thru something the size of lion for sneaky edits can be a pain...) -also checking deleted material especially as some articles were made way back when the WP was alot smaller and thus were too esoteric. I also am not fond of the idea that there are editors and admins who mainly block and vandal-whack - everyone should be doing both. The whole RfA shebang can be daunting but if one has a few FA(s) and/or GAs (and no really acrimonious arguments) then it's a shoo in. The fact that you've always been diplomatic even in the face of some, erm, robust editing is a very good thing to show others. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, later is fine. Just a heads-up anyway. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL - yep. the subarticle on the Mark of Cain has stuff too I noticed...I'm a bit out of my depth but it's looking good. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Vampire:
I didn't know what to do, but I didn't want to just remove your edits to the article; Anyway, the headings you've added to the Vampire article don't really fit in: First off, the Folk beliefs heading is meant to encompass the whole area up until the Modern beliefs section towards the bottom. However, the "History of vampires: part 1" & "Vampires across world cultures" headers stop this by cutting it off. Also, the "History of vampires: part 1" header seems a bit weird - We didn't plan for a part two and it reads more like a book than other headers. In addition, the following sections aren't a history, but the "Folk beliefs" of the vampire (Again, that is why it's good for the "Folk beliefs" section to include this). There can't really be a history for something that doesn't exist. The "Vampires across world cultures" repeats itself later with "World beliefs" and disjoints the article again. However, it's a great idea you've had with the headings under "Description and common attributes", all they need to do is be indented a little more and then they'll fit in quite nicely. So I just wanted to ask if it was alright if I fixed and removed some of the headings you placed; you can always revert me later. Thanks for the help; I had similar troubles when I rewrote Dinosaur, and had the FAC goers pick up on problems with the headings and flow, so I know how important it is to have a spotless heading system. Me and Cas worked a while on getting it to the current state (It was a real mess!), but it's still not perfect. Anyway, thanks a bunch! Spawn Man 06:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, thanks to your edits, the page looks much better now. I didn't think of breaking up the "Description and common attributes" section, but now it looks much better. :) Spawn Man 06:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism
The part I didn't write in my response is that I spent a lot of time involved in Jewish-Christian dialog in the years before I moved to Israel. Probably my favorite activity was the seminar I conducted for a local Episcopal church that wanted to create a Maunday Thursday Seder. I agreed to help on condition that we use it as an opportunity to explore the differences in Jewish/Christian faith stories and not just try to slap a Eucharist on top of a Jewish Seder.

Perhaps one of the most revealing moments was when we got to the part of the Seder where Jews sing the song "Dayenu". The song revisits moments when Jews have felt "gifted" by God, starting with the Exodus and ending with the establishment of Solomon's temple. The song gets its name because a joyful table thumping chorus of "Dayenu" ("It would have been enough") goes between each recounting of yet another of God's gifts to the Jewish people. For Jews this song is one of the highlights of the Passover Seder, but the committee I was working with decided to leave Dayenu out: If God had stopped with the final verse of this song, they would have had no reason for faith.

A Jew can say Dayenu! at Exodus, at Sinai, at Solomon's temple and at all points in between. But the Episcopalians at St. Anne's could not. For them history needed to continue onward. Jesus's death and resurrection was the foundation of their faith. Without the story of Jesus, they felt like outsiders. With it they could believe God was unequivocally on their side. Two thousand years after Paul, these Christians were echoing with their faith stories the claim of Paul: "For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present not the further, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord". (Romans 8:38-39).

Personally, I think it is possible to believe in God for Jewish reasons, Christian reasons or both. To be a Jewish Christian I think you would have to be able to lay claim to both Jewish and Christian reasons for faith. However, I've never been convinced that this is the case with Messianic Jews. Perhaps I have just run into the wrong ones, but most of the Jews for Jesus and Messianic Jews I've met seem to have little sense of a God of mercy outside of their faith in Jesus and they take the Law-Sin-Atonement-Salvation schema at face value. To me, that makes them Christian, not Jewish. Egfrank 09:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikisource deletion discussion
Hi again, maybe of interest to you: On Wikisource there is a deletion discussion regarding this :- Gospel of the Hebrews. Basically, nobody has yet stepped up to the plate to figure out the provenance of the text at that page. John Vandenberg 06:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

misandry contribution
I enjoyed your contribution - while it tended to the abstract, but I partiuclarly enjoyed your profile. I love the combination of your qualifications - pure maths, language and theology is such an interesting and - I would argue - natural mix. It actually relates to my own thesis which is focusing on Goliath and his many shapes and forms - and how the myth is used. Jgda 08:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Song of Songs
Hi Alastair, thanks for your note abt my edits to the Song of Songs article. I was largely focusing on the structure of the lead, rather than the content. But I may have a look at content later. I feel especially that the article at present backs off from the erotic content of the Song - the verses about the lover's "hand" in the girl's "door" must have raised eyebrows back in old Jerusalem.PiCo 03:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Documentary Hypothesis and Julian Morgenstern
We seem to be in conflict over the date when the DH cam to be seriously questioned, and the status of Morgenstern. I'll leave a note explaining my position on the talk page of Documentary hypothesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 06:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Alastair, I've left a note for you on the documentary hypothesis talk page. PiCo 03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Kurów
Could you please write a stub about Kurów on Koine Greek here ( http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/el-koine/Κουρόβ ) – just a few sentences based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kur%C3%B3w ? Only 5-10 sentences enough. Please.

PS. Article about Kurów is already on 236 languages and dialects. If your village/town/city isn't yet on PL wiki, I can do article about it. (I'm first author of requests) Pietras1988 TALK 15:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your perfect article about Kurów! You are very inteligent (vide Babel - some scripts). Maybe Koine Wikipedia will be evaluated because Incubator is good place on test Wikipedias. Pietras1988 07:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

18th C journals
Thanks again for the feedback. I'm no expert but hopefully the list'll be taken over by others more expert. I was in the mood to do a list, and this one was proposed as a genuinely useful one that would be a challenge. It was.

Best,

FT2 (Talk 23:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your kind praise you gave me on October 12, 2007. I would have acknowledged it much earlier if I visited the innards of Wikipedia more often. I also thank you for your rational comments in May of 2007 regarding 'The Female Brain' article that I had started. Sympa 23:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-Altruism
for a dose of Wiki-Altruism, see here....I was going to dob you in under your areas of expertise....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Bible proposal
It is interesting, but have you noticed that most of the concern about the proposal right now is coming from the secular readers? We correct the imbalance that shirahadasha raised and we end up scaring the secular. Have we so tied up the word "God" with bias, that the mere mention of it makes people wonder if the article is being hijacked by fundamentalists? Sad. (BTW for future reference, Egfrank is a "she"). Egfrank 20:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * FC got your goat, did he/she?
 * Actually, I'm enjoying the criticisms. I have a lot of respect for User:Jheald and hope he contributes more to the discussion (left a note on his/her user page to that effect).
 * FC's point about God was valuable as well - remember your comment a while back about needing a synopsis for the non-Western foreign student?
 * People like you and I may be academic in our approach, but we are still hopelessly immersed in the tradition and we are prone to overlook questions like "is there a real text?" or "God? on whose terms?". Egfrank 23:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nathanson & Young
Hi Alastair, thanks for your recent very enlightening contribution to Talk: Misandry. I'm delighted someone could find something concrete on the notability of Spreading Misandry. This is a practical question because I've heard no-body mention this book in gender studies discussions here in Ireland or on the continent in Europe. Could you point me towards some of the discussions you are aware of? I'm a semiotician by trade so although I may have issue with the conclusions drawn and methods used (or perhaps not used) by Nathanson & Young I do recognize they have a point and are doing something very interesting from a cultural studies point of view (using pop culture representations to trace a political and/or ideological process) and I'd be intrigued to see what other people have thought of the book and how they might use it in a teaching environment-- Cailil  talk 19:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note on my talk page Alastair. I was aware of a few of those responses to N&Y.  Unfortunately most of them are more journalistic than is to my taste.  What I'd be most interested in about N&Y is if & how academics are using it within cultural studies seminars - purely from a teaching & learning perspective - considering some of the issues with Spreading Misandry in particular.  I'll be watching your misandry sources page with great interest and I'm having a skim at James Macnamara's PhD.  I've actually done some work on masculinities myself both as a theatre scholar and in relation to fascism in contemporary Italian football so I'm aware some of the frames and methodologies in the field.  It's always interesting to see how other people deal with related subjects though-- Cailil   talk 23:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cain and Abel
Hey Alastair, how do you feel about working up Cain and Abel for a crack at Featured Article...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem Solved
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Problem Solved, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. Ridernyc 10:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Alastair! This looks like a great start. Once I have time I'll be sure to add more. And thanks for the kind talk page note :) ~ Eliz 81 (C)  22:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

SBLHB
The SBL Handbook is online. See the link I added to it in Hebrew Bible. It makes no prescriptions but rather says authors should "be aware of the connotations of alternative expressions" such as HB/OT. The handbook itself uses both throughout. The first sentence of the paragraph you re-added to the article is thus wrong, and the following sentence is irrelevant without it. That is why I deleted it, and that is why it should be deleted again. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 19:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

PS, I reverted your edits adding refs without leaving a comment (that was an accident). The reason was that Wikipedia articles do not qualify as reliable sources. See Verifiability. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 19:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I responded to you at User_talk:Flex. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 20:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

inter-faith dialogue
I appreciate your attempt to clarify my position on the Talk:Bible page. I am eager to know what you think of my most recent comment, in which I elaborate on my initial comment. If you think that what I wrote was fair, I have a proposition: that you and Egfrank rework this thread - I suspect you could add much more on explaining Christian self-perception and perception of Judaism - to create a new section in the Christianity and Judaism article. Shirahadasha is right, we went on too long a tangent not connected to the bible article itself. But I would be glad if this discussion helps clarify important distinctions (and areas of misunderstanding or miscommunication) between Judaism and Christianity. If so, th place for this is the Christianity and Judaism article and I would welcome your role in this. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your recent comments on my talk page. For what it is worth, I do not agree or disagree about Christian martyrdom - I was obviously brought up to be very skeptical that anything ... at least, very few things ... was worth sacrificing your life for - I just don't think it is my place to judge. But I think Boyarin is right that under colonial oppression people will respond in an almost predictable variety of ways. In his book on martyerdom - I think it is called Dying for God and I think you would enjoy and value reading it - I think Boyarin quotes one rabbi (in the Talmud or Midrash or some Aggadah I assume) who is deeply moved when he realizes that Christian martyers are dying with the name of the God of Israel on their lips. The story itself is a moving account of a deeply and all too rare ecumenical moment when a Jewish authority was able to see a Christian not as a threat or competitor or heritic but as a Gentile who nevertheless loves God as deeply as any Jew could.

Anyway, I appreciate your encouraging remarks and hope you and Egfrank nmight be able to draw on our conversation to improve the Christianity and Judaism article.

On an entirely separate note, would you tell me how you translate the first sentence of Shir HaShirim? When you do, I will share with you an interpretation I once heard ... I wish I could remember the nameof the scholar I heard it from, in fact you may already be very familiar with it... Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You would love Boyarin's books.

I think talk pages ought to be sources for new content to articles, as long as verificable sources are provided and conesnsus is achieved.

Alt: "Song of Songs, which is for Solomon." The argument for this translation is the claim that the book contrasts the king's marriage to many women for political purposes (3:6-11 - in my version, only these verse are "of" Solomon) with the trials of two young lovers of more humble background (1: 5-6). That is, the author of the poem is not Solomon and the "l-Shlomo" is not meant to suggest that. Rather, the author of the poem is directing it at Solomon, saying the poem is written for him. Perhaps this poet was giving voice to many who were critical of the king's use of marriage for political ends. They could not criticize him directly, but the song, which simply juxtapposes two kinds of relationships - indeed, ironically seeming to celebrate the king's luxurious wedding party while emphasizing the humbleness of the two lovers who otherwise dominate the poem - could nevertheless communicate to its audience that the king's wealth and fancy is actually empty compared to this more humble, furtive, often thwarted love. "Song of songs, which is [written] for Solomon" is thus a rebuke and a reminder, if not of the more common but admirable love of poor Judeans, then perhaps of another love that was impolitic and dangerous but passionate (the love between his parents). As i said this is not my interpretation and I wish I remembered the name of the person who suggested it in a lecture (it was always my hope he would publish a translation but if he did I have never seen it) ... but I like it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I won't publish your ideas! But i hope you encounter the critic who proposed the reading I mention 9and then tell me!). I agree that it is primarily from the female POV (the theological/allegorical reason would be, that God is like the husband and Israel like the wife, as in Hosea).  But the best example for me is 5:4-5 which I read metaphorically and presume you will not need me to spell it out.  The Bible.  You got to love it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

coelacan's action on Talk:Misandry
Hi Alastair, I requested Coelacan's intervention at Talk:Misandry. Comments, trolling or otherwise, by banned users are to be removed/reverted (see WP:BAN). I am sorry you are upset about the removal of your comments which were obviously made in good faith. There is not a select group making unilateral decisions here. Anacapa was community banned for disruption of wikipedia and legal threats. The evidence for the identification of these IPs as Anacapa's is the ISP range and the edit pattern. Anacapa's rhetoric about feminists is pretty unique on wikipedia, if you look at the contributions of any of his other IPs you'll see the same thing over and over again. What is especially unique are his focus on rape[, on women in military and the accusations leaved at Jimmy Wales and/or this project.

If you check the "whois" info (which is available on their contribs page) for these IPs 128.111.95.65 and 128.111.95.161 you'll see that the range 128.111.95.xx is owned by University of California Santa Barbara. The majority of Anacapa's sock-puppet IPs are in this range (see Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Anacapa). One of the links connecting Anacapa to this IP range can be seen here. I identified this IP as a sock of Anacapa, I asked Coelacan to have a look at the situation. I am sorry your comments were caught up in this there is nothing being implied about you or your behaviour, you are a top class wikipedian. Anacapa on the other hand is a banned user, and the way wikipedia requires us to behave towards such users is to deny recognition - not to respond to their comments and to remove them (see WP:BAN, WP:RBI and WP:DENY). This was normal proceedure and I hope you don't take this in any way personally-- Cailil  talk 13:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a further note. The reason Coelacan stated "do not restore" is stated in WP:BAN: "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." The link to Anacapa's WP:CSN case is here.  This was all carried out publicly.  If you are in communication with this user you may want to mention that there are methods by which this case can be appealed - namely Arbcom.  I tried to leave you a note explaining this yesterday but I'm having bizare problems with my server at the moment and I failed in my attempt to drop you a line.  I'm sincerely sorry you feel you're being censored but in all honesty this had nothing to do with you nor does it have anything to do with Anacapa's ideas - they disrupted this project in an attempt to use it as a blog/soapbox/forum and in order to make a point, they did so for over a year - they got caught and then they got banned for it-- Cailil   talk 21:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see that Cailil has answered most of your questions. You also asked for the discussion where Anacapa was banned, and you will find it here. You should also be aware that off-topic conversations like the one you were having with Anacapa are subject to removal at any time regardless of who is participating.

Thankfully you did not restore Anacapa's edits, but you did say, "I feel free to restore the aleged "banned users" comments any time I like. I want reliable sources before I consent to having my own and other users words censored." Trust me that this approach will not end well. If a user removes edits while citing WP:BAN, you should seek confirmation of the ban but you should not restore the edits while you are waiting. If an administrator removes edits while citing WP:BAN, you may seek confirmation but you should assume that they know what they're doing and you should not treat the situation lightly; restoring banned users' edits in these situations has led to blocks against the reverter. This is for future reference; you did right by asking and waiting. As your edit at Talk:Misandry is still off-topic, being unrelated to the improvement of the Misandry article, I am going to remove it now. It is linked here for archival. ··coe l acan 21:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We try to make access to the old discussions as easy as possible. There is List of banned editors, in which every entry should include a link to the relevant decision. That page is linked from WP:BAN. As for what's on topic, well, the only thing that is on topic at Talk:Misandry is discussion of how to improve the article Misandry. Even if Anacapa were not banned, his posts there are not on-topic. And your request for information about the removal would have been on-topic at User talk:Coelacan, not so much at Talk:Misandry. Since the questions you raised there have been answered, and since they do not related to improvement of the Misandry article, they would be a distraction if they remained. I'm not chiding you for putting them there in the first place, just explaining why I've removed them. And as they are linked from this conversation, they are not lost from the relevant place. ··coe l acan 01:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message Alastair. It's always a pleasure talking to you.  I actually understand Anacapa's position, I don't agree with most of it but that doesn't matter.  Its his methods that are the problem not his message - some European feminists (Julia Kristeva for one - who actual doesn't categorize herself as a feminist) have actually have been making some of his points since the 1970s.  As you said to me a few days ago men's movements are a broad church - so is feminism (or rather so are feminisms).  I can see how all of this appeared strange and shocking to you and if I ever see a converstaion like yours with that IP again I'll make sure the good faith user knows before hand that their comments may be deleted-- Cailil   talk 02:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just in regard to some of your excellent suggestions to Coelacan I'd make a few notes. First as per WP:DENY we don't want to encourage infamy for 2 reasons: a) we would like people to learn from their mistakes and hopefully make a return; and b) we don't want to encourage "hardcore trolls" (so to speak) to get on to wikipedia's most wanted.  I do think we should have a more accessible record though - WT:DENY might be a good place to discuss such a suggestion with the wider community-- Cailil   talk 16:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick correction WT:DENY doesn't exist, I was trying to link to Deny recognition's talk page but on reflection a better place for discussion might indeed be Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy-- Cailil  talk 12:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Shlama
You're welcome. Btw may I know why are you so thankful that I've translated the article? Actually translating articles is something usual, and some articles in the Malay Wikipedia are translated work, hehe... --Edmund the King of the Woods! (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In Malaysia, the word equivalent to shlama in Malay is salam, which is actually an Arabic word, used to be spelt as salaam in English. The word selamat alone is not used in Malaysia as a greeting, but accompany another word such as:

In Malay, the word selamat alone means "safe". See, the difference with Indonesian is also here! --Edmund the King of the Woods! (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Documentary Hypothesis
"I'm not a fan of the DH, few are these days, but I don't think editorial process is fundamentally contrary to divine inspiration. Kings is explicit about using sources, as is Luke-Acts. My dissatisfaction with the DH is logical not doctrinal."

Wouuld you mind expand on this? Do you prefer a different version of the hypothesis? or do you accept Mosaic authorship?

I'm still looking for sources to add to the Mosaic authorship page (It really lacks K. Kitchens view on the subject) so I'd love to hear your views. BestWolf2191 (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of early Christians by the Romans
This article is so bad its almost hopeless. I hope all is well. Hey could you add the arrest warrant found in Egypt to the article? Please pretty please with sugar on top? You know the one you linked on my talkpage. Also the article states a non mainstream opinion as if it is mainstream. Could you add maybe the Western side of it? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Thank You Alastair! Hey what exactly did Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus say about Christianity and or Christians? Also why is it not in his article I wonder? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC) PS You Alastair that "stuff" that is designated as officially lost is not really "lost" but just not released to the West from the "Greeks". Like the didache it is common knowledge and since until the 1980s there hasn't been open and clear dialog (and thanks to the feasco with the Codex Sinaiticus and Morton Smith's lovely fabrications) allot of early historical documents are just not available in the West. You know things might be different if the Greeks could trust. God Bless you. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC) EXCELLENT! LoveMonkey (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey anything new on the whole Muratorian fragment dating controvesies? Just checking. LoveMonkey 16:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Youngstown Ohio Works
Sir, I saw your name on the list of volunteer reviewers and wondered if you would mind looking over this article on an early 20th-century baseball club. The article is now rated B-class, but I think it stands a chance of being promoted to GA status, that is, with the help of an experienced reviewer. Any recommendations would be very much appreciated. Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I'll look forward to your comments and recommendations. With appreciation, -- twelsht (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt and thorough copy edit! I especially appreciated your detailed edit summaries, which will help me to make more informed stylistic decisions down the road. It didn't surprise me that you detected in the article an overall journalistic tone. I spent some time in journalism, and much of my source material consisted of old newspaper accounts, which are even more hyperbolic than their modern counterparts. I'll be on the alert for any blatant examples of journalese. Again, I appreciate the time you spent on this as well as the kind words. I'll certainly let you know how the nomination process goes! Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Award

 * I only recently became aware of the barnstar templates, which sheds some light on the disembodied star you received last week. By the way, I didn't intend for this more specific award to override the earlier one, so please feel free to restore it. I also wanted to let you know that Youngstown Ohio Works was nominated yesterday for FA status. Thank you, again, for your help!--twelsht (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep you posted!
I appreciate the vote of confidence! The assessment process isn't over yet, but responses have been supportive so far. I'll certainly let you know how things turn out. Thank you, again, for your style edits, which helped to set the article on the path for an FA nomination!

By the way, I've just completed another baseball-themed article. Jimmy McAleer outlines the career of a rather obscure player and manager who participated in the American League's formation. If you have some time to look at it, I'd appreciate your feedback. If not, please don't give it a second thought. I won't request a peer review for this article until the FAC completes its work on Youngstown Ohio Works. Again, I'll be sure to let you know what happens! Best, -- twelsht (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, as always! There's absolutely no rush. The piece seems close to a GA, and I know it would benefit tremendously from your copy editing. I'll keep you posted on the FAC! Best, -- twelsht (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Good news!
I wanted to let you know that Youngstown Ohio Works was just promoted to FA status. Thanks, again, for your assistance! I have requested a peer review for Jimmy McAleer. As always, I'd greatly appreciate your feedback. Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Stars and middle eastern folklore etc.
Dear Alastair, I am no tinkering with Sirius, Canopus and Algol among others - plenty of middle eastern/cradle of civilization crossover here! When you're not busy, any help on primary sources of legends/folklore etc. would be much appreciated. Much of what we have is limited to a 19th century book by Richard Hinckley Allen which is okay but has been criticised in its extraction of lore from older material.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alastair, it's Pilot
Alastair, please stop by " Bible talk and join in on the discussion I am involved with regarding Carls' insistence of deleating prior vaid work in the articles intro. .......... he has deleted the 4 sentences I added in my edit relating to testament and covenant ........ also he has deleted others work which was , Holy Bible, Scriptures , Word of God in the intro. ......... I am not sure how you feel about all this , but I would like to see a proper discussion and consenses of others who have been involved prior ........... I am not sure why he feels it is OK to delete valid and properly cited work ......... tonight I undid his deletion of this work three times and he has reverted it back every time ......... tried to open a reasonable discussion with him both on the article talk page and on his own talk page ........... thanks in advance ...... Pilotwingz (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy McAleer
Hi Alastair,

Based on the recommendations of a couple reviewers, I sent this sports-related biography directly to the FAC. Any comments or recommendations you could provide would be greatly appreciated! Best wishes for the holiday! -- twelsht (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Alastair! Best, -- twelsht (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Alastair, If you have a chance, I'd appreciate your feedback on the latest version of Jimmy McAleer. At this point, three reviewers have given it their full support. The single reviewer who opposes its promotion has a history of contentious commentaries, from what I've been told. Again, any assistance on this would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, once again, for your painstaking--and nuanced--approach to copy editing. Below is a small symbol of my appreciation. Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * D, Thanks so much for the kind words--and for the awesome editing! I definitely share your views on the possibilities of Wikipedia. We'll have a chance to discuss this subject down the road. For now, Happy New Year to you, too! -- twelsht (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Alastair, Thanks, again, for your thorough copy editing and strong support of Jimmy McAleer! It doesn't look as though the FA will happen this time around. The opposed reviewer apparently has no interest in revisiting the article. When the FAC closes, I will need to take a Wiki break for a couple of months to focus on my dissertation--a manuscript that has nothing to do with major league baseball, by the way. My academic research does reflect my strong interest in local and public history, however. And these concerns are at the root of my attraction to the Wikipedia project. We'll talk more on the possibilities of Wikipedia down the road. For now, thank you, again, for your painstaking copy editing as well as your thoughtful--and extremely flattering--review of Jimmy McAleer. Wikipedia needs more editors like you! Cheers, -- twelsht (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

new article
Would you consider contributing to this? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

... also the extensive discussion on the talk page especially from this section of the talk page, to the bottom of the talk page. Your thoughts would be very constructive. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 01:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

happy Mango season
  'TIS MANGO SEASON.... Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC
Thanks for the encouragement, and good luck with your book! At some point, we can commiserate on the challenges of balancing Wikipedia-related projects with "real-life" academic responsibilities. Cheers. -- twelsht (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Matriarchy
Would you mind taking a look at my comment on that article's talk page? I think your changes to the lead section need to be at the very least reworded or substantiated by sources. Thanks. -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)