User talk:Alastair Haines/Archive 7

Most excellent
I agree with your comments on Early Christianity and again the Early Christian Fathers article is excellent. Thank you for your kind words and intervention. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Ah haha but you forgot Father Diodore of Tarsus. The Chaldocean will appreciate this am sure. God Bless, Alistair. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems a fair conclusion.

LoveMonkey (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A Question Alastair
Hello Alastair, I have a question for you. What is the meaning (to you) of the word heresy? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC) In EO it is to choose your own opinion over that of the community (the phenomena of Phronema).LoveMonkey (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah! Very interesting, that makes Christians heretics from the world community. :)
 * In Protestantism, heresy is anything contrary to the Bible. Sola scriptura is a common phrase associated with staying clear of heresy. Protestants don't trust themselves to get things right! ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

During the time of Westernization in Russia, the pro Westernizers pushed that heresy is to mean, one who opposes "Orthodoxy". This by extention meant that people did not have a "right" to their own interruption and or opinion. But to the Orthodox clergy this is not what Orthodoxy means and this is not what heresy means. The idea of heresy as this became so pervasive that the conservative elements in Russia (called now in hindsight Slavophiles) created a philosophy (yes Russian Philosophy) to address philosophical dialect with philosophical dialect- their response was called sobornost or organic, spontanious ordering. If you would like I can post the apology here on your talk page, it is to RC and Protestanism. The problem is this too, is wrong. But lets start there with sobornost. Respond if you would like to read the apology it is not long. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgive me but it would be better to post. You see it would be for brother Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. For old times in his honor. I think he is a saint you see. Maybe it would help people understand the old man better and why Tolstoy was wrong.

(talk) 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Let me say, that Orthodox is organic and opposes the "mechanization" of things. Philosophy is (by definition) a set of analytical tools (called dialects) to deconstruct reality. God is not a machine, man is not a machine, reality is not a machine. Orthodoxy is to maintain all of the community's traditions. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Monkey -- if I may butt in here... the designation of "heresy" is dependent upon the group, and attempts to identify with the group. For instance, to Jewish Orthodoxy, Paul is a heretic.  To Christian Orthodoxy, Paul is (by definition) Orthodox.  To Buddhist Orthodoxy (if there were such a thing), Paul is neither... because no one is trying to identify Paul with that group.  The designation, then, is only a response to a person or group claiming to be either a subset of the larger group, or a replacement to that group.  Jehovah's Witnesses do not claim to be members of the larger group of Orthodox (i.e. Nicene) Christians.  Instead, they claim to be "Christians" instead of Orthodox Christians.  It is the attempted use of the identity of the mainstream group that calls into question whether one is truly representative of that group (Orthodox) or not (heretical).  No one accuses Barack Obama of Democratic heresy, because he's very much in line with other Democrats.  However, if Barack Obama were a Republican, he would very much be accused of "heresy" by that party, even more so than John McCain already is.  My point is this: "heresy" does not mean that you are wrong; it simply means that you are not mainstream.  Martin Luther was a "heretic" to Catholicism, but one of the principle founders of Protestant "orthodoxy."  In terms of the politics you mention, Russian political orthodoxy, Abraham Lincoln is neither orthodox nor heretical, because no one is trying to identify him with that group, and therefore that group has no need to exclude him.Tim (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh why I wanted to post the comments. So be it. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to post, brother, especially now we are three. :)) Alastair Haines (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Monkey, sorry for some confusion. I'm not sure why I read Russian Soviet political "Orthodoxy" in there.  I see now you are an Eastern Christian.  In the broadest terms, I think that both Eastern and Western Christians will agree that the Nicene Creed (with or without the filioque clause) marks the acceptable boundary of Christian Orthodoxy.  Groups that are in opposition to it would be heretical.  Subsets beyond that have their own definitions.  A paedobaptist is non-Baptist, but that doesn't make him heretical.  As Alastair mentioned, Evangelicals or many Protestants would cite sola scriptura... but that doesn't mark any definitive limit, because scripture is claimed by many groups.Tim (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As it is written so let it be done. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sobornost
Link The message of Sobornost Sobornost as an apology for Caesaropapism. Sobornost against spiritual elitism or extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Although Khomiakov regarded Orthodoxy as the one true Church he was in no sense a fanatic. He did not believe that extra ecclesiam nulla salus (there is no salvation outside the church) in the sense that every Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Buddhist, etc., is doomed to perdition. "The mysterious bonds that unite the earthly Church with the rest of mankind are not revealed to us; therefore we have neither the right nor the inclination to suppose that all who remain outside the visible Church will be severely condemned, especially as such a supposition would contradict the Divine mercy" (II, 220). "In confessing one baptism, as the beginning of all the sacraments we do not reject the other six;" but in addition to the seven, "there are many other sacra¬ments; for every work done in faith, hope and love is inspired by the spirit of God and evokes God's invisible grace" (II, 14). '''"He who loved truth and righteousness and defended the weak against the strong, who fought against corruption, tortures and slavery, is a Christian, if only to some extent; he who did his best to improve the life of the workers and to brighten the wretched lot of the classes oppressed by poverty whom we cannot as yet make quite happy, is a Christian, if only in part." "Apart from Christ and without love for Christ man cannot be saved, but what is meant here is not the historical appearance of Christ, as Our Lord Himself tells us (II, 160, 220): Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come" (Matt. XII. 32). "Christ is not only a fact, He is a law, He is the realized idea; and therefore a man who, by the dispensation of Providence has never heard about the Righteous One who was crucified in Judea, may yet be worshipping the essence of Our Saviour though he cannot name Him or bless His Divine name. He who loves righteousness loves Christ; he whose heart is open to love and compassion is His disciple though he does not him¬self know it. All Christian sects contain men who in spite of their mistaken beliefs (for the most part inherited) honor with their whole life, with their thoughts, words and deeds Him who died for the sake of His criminal brethren. All of them, from the idolater to the sec¬tarian, are more or less in darkness; but all see in the gloom some glimmering rays of the eternal light which reaches them in various ways" (II, 221).'' Sobornost as an apology against Western Christianity. In his criticism of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism Khomia¬kov takes for his starting point the principle of sobornost or commonalty; namely, the combination of unity and freedom based upon the love of God and His truth and the mutual love of all who love God. In Catholicism he finds unity without freedom and in Protestantism freedom without unity. In these denominations only an external unity and an external freedom are realized. The legal formalism and logical rationalism of the Roman Catholic Church have their roots in the Roman State. These features developed in it more strongly than ever when the Western Church without consent of the Eastern introduced into the Nicean Creed the filioque clause. Such arbitrary change of the creed is an expression of pride and lack of love for one's brethren in the faith. "In order not to be regarded as a schism by the Church, Romanism was forced to ascribe to the bishop of Rome absolute infallibility." In this way Catholicism broke away from the Church as a whole and became an organization based upon external authority. Its unity is similar to the unity of the state: it is not super¬rational but rationalistic and legally formal. Rationalism has led to the doctrine of the works of superarogation, established a balance of duties and merits between God and man, weighing in the scales sins and prayers, trespasses and deeds of expiation; it adopted the idea of trans¬ferring one person's debts or credits to another and legalized the exchange of assumed merits; in short, it introduced into the sanctuary of faith the mechanism of a banking house. Roman Catholicism rationalizes even the sacrament of the Eucharist: it interprets spiritual action as purely material and debases the sacrament to such an extent that it becomes in its view a kind of atomistic miracle. The Orthodox Church has no metaphysical theory of Transsubstantiation, and there is no need of such a theory. Christ is the Lord of the elements and it is in His power to do so that "every thing, without in the least changing its physical substance" could become His Body. "Christ's Body in the Eucharist is not physical flesh." Sobornost as an apology specific to sola scriptura. Sobornost to Western Christianity as a call for unity Sobornost in contrast to Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Khomiakov describes the difference between the three Christian denominations as follows: Three voices are heard more distinctly than others in Europe: "Obey and believe my decrees," says Rome. "Be free and try to create some sort of faith for yourself," says Protestantism. And the Church calls to the faithful: "Let us love one another that we may with one accord confess the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost." Sobornost as love and freedom. What is particularly valuable in Khomiakov's religious and philosophical writings is his emphasis upon the indissoluble union between love and freedom: Christianity is the religion of love and therefore it presupposes freedom. The dogmas of the Church are inviolable, as is clear to everyone who understands the conditions of the Church's life, but in matters of "opinion" Khomiakov freely seeks for new ways. "I often permit myself," he says in a letter to Aksakov, "to disagree with so-called opinions of the Church." It is not surprising that soon after Khomiakov's death the reactionary paper Moscow News called him a teacher of heresy. Khomiakov's views on the historical development of mankind and on social life are closely connected with his religious philosophy. In his Notes on Universal History ("Semiramis") he reduces the whole histori¬cal process to the struggle of two principles-the Aryan and the Cushite. The Aryan principle is spiritual worship of the "freely creating spirit," the Cushite principle (the home of which is Ethiopia) is subjection to matter, "to the organic necessity determining its products through inevitable logical laws." The Aryan principle in religion is lofty mono¬theism, the highest expression of which is Christianity. The Cushite principle in religion is pantheism without a morally determined deity. The struggle of these two principles in history is the struggle between freedom and necessity. The realization of Christian ideals in the historical development of Western Europe is hindered by their rationalistic distortion and by the proud conceit of her peoples. Russia received Christianity from Byzantium in its "purity and wholeness," free from one-sided rationalism. The Russian people's humility, their piety and love of the ideal of holiness, their liking for communal organization in the form of the village commune and the artel, based upon the duty of mutual help, give grounds to hope that Russia will go further than Europe in realizing social justice and, in particular, will find ways of reconciling the interests of capital and labor. Sobornost and the mir Sobornost from other slavophils. Sobornost as democratic Aleksey Khomyakov pg87 from the History of Russian Philosophy by N.O. Lossky.

The mother of all Western Conspiracy Theories?
It seems that the Constantinian shift is yet another historically incorrect made up and made to play on people ignorants, conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories have no place being paraded on wiki as fact. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Could he even do a shift without a klutch?Tim (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Alastair thank you for taking an interest most people don't even consider us. I have tried like the dickens to clarify all of this in the work I did in the article theoria. God Bless you and thank you for at least listening.

"He prays with his body alone, and not yet with spiritual knowledge. But when the man once blind received his sight and saw the Lord, he acknowledged Him no longer as the Son of David but as the Son of God, and worshipped Him' (cf. John 9 38)." St Symeon the New Theologian Philokalia Vol.4

LoveMonkey (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Monkey, just so you know -- there are plenty of us out there who appreciate the spirituality of Eastern Christianity. Just a few days ago I was defending a misrepresentation of it being made by someone attempting to make the Eastern Fathers sound like Latter Day Saints (Mormons).  I have very dear friends in the Eastern Clergy, and find your form of worship to be beautiful, balanced, and humble before God.  Just keep on being yourselves.  You're a good part of this kosmos.Tim (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Slight misreading
Hey Alastair,

Thanks for the kind words, but you misread me.

I can hardly walk into a room without Tim jumping me and bludgeoning me. He goes around telling everyone how everything up to and including racism, pollution and the high price of gasoline is ultimately my fault. And yes, I'm exaggerating a little there, but not a lot. If people accuse Alastair of improper behavior, it's my fault. That's on this very page.

My point was that as far as Tim is concerned, everything is my fault. Even the criticisms against you -- many of which are well founded, well documented, but still unacknowledged by you -- are my fault, as far as Tim is concerned. The words "That's on this very page" referred to the fact that Tim's claim that accusations against you are my fault was on that very page.

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you misread what I was saying. So that's what I'm going to do. I'll be able to do so as long as you don't suggest to anyone that I was actually taking the blame for accusations against you.

In all honesty, I have no opinion on the conflict between you and Ilkali. I haven't read the evidence, and it revolved around issues that don't interest me. The fact remains, however, that on the day of that edit war, you reverted my edit without any discussion. Everyone who looks at the diffs can see that this is the case. What boggles my mind, really, is that you refuse to even acknowledge a solid fact like that. Possibly even to yourself. And it's that sort of denial that's going to mess you up big-time in this arbitration. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Danvers Statement
An article that you have been involved in editing, Danvers Statement, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Danvers Statement. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Wronkiew (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Virginity
Hi:

You reverted a change I made in the virginity article. I corrected the quote where is said that "homosexual intercourse and prostitution are all explicitly forbidden by name." in 1st corninthians, and it is given as the citation. I changed that to say that sodomy, not homosexual intercourse was explicitly forbidden by name, as that is correct. I realize that the term sodomy is a very general term. Indeed, some Christians interpret sodomy to mean homosexual intercourse, but that is widely disputed. The term Sodomy is also widely held to have originated as forbidding idolatry and bestiality.

The original Greek reads: "η ουκ οιδατε οτι αδικοι θεου βασιλειαν ου κληρονομησουσιν μη πλανασθε ουτε πορνοι ουτε ειδωλολατραι ουτε μοιχοι ουτε μαλακοι ουτε αρσενοκοιται"

The King James version reads "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind";

Here is the Worlwide English version of that: "Do you not know that bad people will have no part in the kingdom where God rules? Do not be fooled. There are some people who will not have part in that place. They are those who commit adultery of any kind, those who have idols, or steal, or are always wanting more, or talk wrong things about people, or drink plenty of strong drink, or take things by force, or curse."

Whycliffe (one of the older translations) "Whether ye know not, that wicked men shall not wield the kingdom of God? Do not ye err; neither lechers, neither men that serve maumets [neither men serving to idols], neither adulterers, neither lechers against kind, neither they that do lechery with men"

Young literal translation (closest to the original greek) "have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,"

It takes Broad interpretation to get from the original greek (effeminate) to fundamentalist versions that say "homosexual intercourse". Consider that although sodomy has been legally interpreted in the past 100 years or so to mean oral sex, bestiality and anal sex, at the time of the writing of 1st Corinthians, sodomy primarily meant a form of idol worship and bestiality, and had nothing to do with homosexuality.

Regardless of my opinion or other opinions of Wikipedia editors, if one wishes to quote first corinthians, the correct interpetation would be "sodomy" not "homsexual intercourse". The reader can then, depending on their personal religious convictions, interpret the original words (sodomy) as they please. It is not our job to mis-interpret that for them. Atom (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

don't forget
Alastair...another incident of Ilkari's intantaneous disregard for Civility and propriety is his appearance at Unencyclopedia and his immediate scolding of my improper (in his view) request for an arbitrator. When I explained my logic, there was no apology or response of any kind. Very rude and unthoughtful behavior toward a newbie, which I still am--Buster7 (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you comfortable giving links to changes in the text of articles? Click on the "history" tab at the top of a page (like even your own talk page here). There are two columns of "radio buttons" you can select one in each column, then press the "compare" button--it shows the differences between the article at those two points. There is a link in your browser that can be copied and pasted into any posts you make. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buster7"

I get it up to the "link in your browser"...do you mean upper left side.... File---EditViewFavorites---ToolsHelp,--and then copy and paste under Edit? How do I create the link?...Duh...Where is an eight year old when you need one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BTW...nice upper-cut!--Buster7 (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not ask you to mentor me "out of the blue"...I forget when or where I first ran across you, but I was impressed. I remember that I would let my mouse more or less wander the back rooms of wikipedia. I would read article discussions and User talk pages and look at editors User pages. It was a valuable learning time. I wasn't necessarily searching for a mentor, consciously, but, whenever I pursued a "thread" that included you, it was your clarity that stood out. Somewhere along the line you commented to some other editor about "my door is always open". So. I walked in. But, I wasn't just passing by. You were Under Surviellence, LOL!!! I don't regret it.
 * (The thread that led to our wiki-friendship may have started at Belgium thru Miguel-mateo...he had just added his wonderful Euro-coin, which caused me to look at his User/talk and see mention of you and remembered that I had seen your "mind" (so to speak) before.)--Buster7 (talk) 21:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Buster, you are very good at saying nice things. :)
 * Thank you.
 * I value your honesty and humour.
 * Wikipedia is, among other things, quite a social environment.
 * In my experience disputes are the exception, not the rule.
 * You are a great asset in either circumstance. Thanks for finding and befriending me. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

30NOV07
[]...bottom--Buster7 (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

31DEC07..[]

Masculinity
Apologies Haines, I seem to have stumbled across another topic area that you own. Abtract (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Show preview
Just a helpful hint ... if you use the "show preview" tab at the bottom of an edit before pressing "save page", it avoids swamping the edit history with 20 or more edits in a short time as you have done on masculinity. Abtract (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Abtract, in reply to both uncivil comments above, consider yourself warned for attempting to provoke ongoing disharmony.
 * Ironically, had you actually used the edit history, you would see that you inadvertantly made two edits that I had previously made, but had agreed for others to change.
 * So, in fact, I thank you for making two edits that we both agree are genuine improvements. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies if you found my comments "uncivil" - I would appreciate knowing what was uncivil about them so that I can avoid doing it again? I never "inadvertantly" make edits (quite a difficult thing to do I would have thought), I edit to improve the article regardless of whether it is an edit of which you approve or not, so there is no irony in it. Abtract (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh! Nothing new, just your usual slanderous and demonstrably false suggestions like that I think I "own" articles. Some time in the next month I'll also document the history of your malicious and rude disruption at Gender of God. Showing up at Masculine and Feminine is also blatant stalking and provocation. Additionally, I would suggest there's a plausible case that you were attempting to influence things with ArbCom, which shows contempt in trying to deceive them even further.
 * Your credibility is no higher than the tone of your language at the ArbCom evidence page, as noted by two independent editors. You've also drawn Cailil into two errors, the misjugement of failing to see and address your rudeness, and then an unretracted demonstrably false personal attack on me. That's a lot of incivility, in fact, it's probably just plain trolling, exploiting the nature of the medium and processes to cause harm.
 * And to think I tried to give you a break and attribute some good faith to you. Silly me, eh?
 * Don't try to give the impression you're willing to apologize, I've spelled out clearly more than once where apologies are owing. The evidence page at ArbCom alone requires plenty. Address that first, then we can talk. Otherwise, conversation is over. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And I guess that wasn't uncivil? I really do wish you would "document the history of your rude and malicious disruption at Gender of God". You believe you are cleverer than most (possibly true) and that that gives you the right to dictate the content of articles you have adopted. In the end this god complex will be your undoing. You are a very sad person Haines and the sooner you are gone from here the better for Wikipedia and its editors.Abtract (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Later, Gator
Alastair -- I'm done. I might add some diffs on the arbcom, but I'm done. I can't keep fighting Ilkali, and while I understand HGs good faith attempt to keep the talk page from being cluttered, it wasn't the right subject to do it in. I might see you around some time, but SkyWriter is outta here.Tim (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A discussion that might be of your interest ...
A discussion that might be of interest is here ... but I know you are very busy with your case, up to you if you want to ship in. I am handling it OK so far, the outcome of the discussion may be a huge learning experience for a lot of editors, not only us.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

List of New Testament uncials
I want to write more about classification of uncials, i.e. history of classification (Wettstein, Gregory). How to title this section? "History of classification"? "Classification of uncials"?

Perhaps we also need to write more about role of uncials for Textual Criticism. Maybe it will better to create another article — "Uncial codex" (or "Uncial codex of New Testament"). In this article we can write about differences between early uncials and late uncials, evolution of uncial text of the New Testament (Codex Boernerianus sometimes used minuscule letters — α, κ, ρ with the same size like uncials). I think we need this article, because in List of New Testament uncials we can not write everything. I afraid it will not comprehensive article for a long of time.

After few days I will depart to Zakopane (1-14 September). Thanks for everything. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For pleasure of course. Zakopane is one of very few places in Poland which is atrractive even for Americans.

Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You have Mount Kosciuszko, named in honour of the Polish national hero General Tadeusz Kościuszko. Kościuszko was important person in history of Poland, and United States. In fact he was Belarussian.


 * In last time i wrote articles about manuscripts used by Erasmus: 1, 2, 2815, 2814. He used also minuscules 4, 7, and 817. Some other minuscules like: 13, 33, 61 are important. They also need articles. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, I am partly Belarussian, partly Ukrainian, although I was born in Poland. I love russian literature (f.e. Fyodor Dostoevsky). Polish literature is not interesting for me (in spite some exceptions). I have problem with identity. My ancestors were Russian Orthodox, one of my ancestors was murdered by Poles in 1920 (he did not spoke Polish - in that time it was enough), my grandfathers were persecuted by Poles, and by communists after World War II, but in Soviet Union persecuted was evebody, every people. In 1944-1950 about 500 russians orthodoxes were killed in Poland, and several tousand exiled to Soviet Union, to Joseph Stalin. Yes, it was communism in that time, I tell about unofficial, undergroud Polish army existed in that time. For us it was worse than German occupation, and of course in Soviet Union was several times worse. After all I participated in Polish ecumenical translation of Bible. (New Testament - pl:Biblia Ekumeniczna). In fact we are not Poles, Russians, Belarussians, or Ukrainians, we are with God or with Satan, and not other possibility. Wy we are fighting? Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Main Page nomination for Anekantavada
I am trying to nominate Anekantavada on the main page here. Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/requests. Need your help.--Anish (talk) 05:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Alastair, thanks for your kind words. You will be interested to read this essay – Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa (from meta). I know all religions have something good to offer to this world. But Jainism is quite under represented and unknown…so I am trying my bit in my own small way. Even if Anekantavada does not make it to the main page this time….no problem. FA was my target. I will still have faith in wikipedia as a fountain of knowledge to be shared. And in bargain, I am also making good friends.:-)) --Anish (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Anekantavada is scheduled to appear on 19th on Main page!--Anish (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Why Men Rule
I have nominated Why Men Rule, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Why Men Rule. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Suntag (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy edit request for Mangalorean Catholics
Hi Alastair Haines!!!. I saw your name listed at WP:PRV as a general copyeditor. I was wondering if you can copyedit Mangalorean Catholics, which is about a small Christian group, since I have noticed you are interested in Christianity. You can take your own time and copyedit the article whenever you are free. Also, if you have any suggestions, please do put it up. Thanks in anticipation, Kensplanet (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a very strong memory Alastair I must say. I thought you'll forget me or the article after so long since you are a very famous copyeditor and you receive so many copyediting requests. That's why I had to post the first sentence. Even if you could copyedit just the lead, it's more than enough. If you would like me to do anything on any article, then please inform me but please no copyedits. :) Kensplanet (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please help a peer review!
Hi there, I also have quite an interest in TESOL & Australia, I thought you might share my interest in the peer review, Peer_review/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories/archive1. If you're like a lizard drinking, then no wucking furries; to drunken violence against furries, Australia says no. :)--Thecurran (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ogre

 * The Ogre does what ogres can,
 * Deeds quite impossible for Man,
 * But one prize is beyond his reach,
 * The Ogre cannot master Speech.
 * About a subjacated plain,
 * Among its desperate and slain,
 * The Ogre stalks with hands on hips,
 * While drivel gushes from his lips.
 * by W.H.Auden................--Buster7 (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See; Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive330...whenever you get a few hours, LOL, an over-zealous (and dangerous) admin only gets a spanking, an interesting "underworld" is revealed.--Buster7 (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A Bahai Prayer

 * Is there any Remover Of Difficulties But God? Say....: Praise be God! He is God! All are His servants and all abide by His bidding.
 * Peace......--Buster7 (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, be wary! Thou art faced by an autonomous army, independant of all interference from kings and prelates. The Blind see what they want to see. And...they, once again, come with guns and badges. Tread softly, My Friend!--Buster7 (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What?

 * LoL. Thank you Buster!
 * You are an absolutely fantastic man.


 * I've had an idea. I'm very busy in real life at the moment, however, when I'm done, I wonder if you'd be so kind as to work on a Wiki article with me. We both appreciate chivalry, how about we gather sources and other editors and get that article up to featured status?
 * In fact, even though I'm busy, I might feed off your energy and "good vibes" and chip in more than I can dare to plan.
 * How about you look at the existing article and suggest some improvements?
 * Godspeed good Sir! :D Alastair Haines (talk) 13:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank You, my friend! Your offer fits my needs to the Max. I will check them out for sure. I've come to the realization that I may in fact be a troll. I like a good fight and I seek them out. Not with malicious intentions but for the intellectual energy they provide. I need to re-align myself within WikiWorld....SO..... We are both busy...in real life and (I) at the asst. Sarah Palin articles and discussions. Why don't we both take a WikiBreak, of sorts, and get back together after the U.S. elections. I'm working for the Obama campaign (canvasing, voter reg., phone bank, wikiediting). I'm not a politico but I like to get involved and provide services instead of $$$$ to the candidate we (wife & I) like...See you when Obama is THE MAN! ..feel free to stay in touch--I'll never be to busy to not check my talk.--Buster7 (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Kai Ego

 * Gosh I love you guys! :)
 * Wikipedia is a great place.
 * It provides an outstanding opportunity for collective and co-operative sharing of knowledge and building of friendships based on the adventure and pleasure of such sharing.
 * The policies are generally spot on, and more profoundly excellent than meets the eye of the casual observer.
 * The only problem with Wiki is the problem shared by anything humanity produces, no matter how great and noble--humanity is it's own unique problem. People are people and such is our glory and our shame.
 * I've found some recent matters deeply personally distressing. But that is actually a good thing! It makes me feel the joy of good friends more sweetly.


 * Whoever said it, I love it, "a true patriot defends his country, even against it's own government." But such patriots rarely exist in isolation. Even Elijah was but one of seven thousand! Those with ears let them hear!


 * Long live Wiki, and civilized defence of reliable text--in service to readers.


 * Thanks Tim, Buster and others on this page (as well as anonymous email encouragers). I'm neither disappearing, nor changing my principles. What we have is too good for that.


 * PS Although some have sworn at me in Latin, it is heartwarming to receive praise in Greek. God bless you Tim. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, my friend. Keep up the great work!Tim (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You have blurb mail...Tim (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)



Lectionary 150
I have started articles about lectionaries of New Testament. Infobox is not ready.


 * form = [Papyrus | Uncial | Miniscule]

en:Template:New Testament manuscript infobox

Several days ago I was on Rysy, the highest point of Poland (2499,6 m above level of sea). It is one of three peaks of Rysy. The highest has 2503 and belongs to Slovakia. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

1RR (Singular they)
Alastair, you've reverted Singular they three times recently, violating the 1RR (one revert per article per week) ArbCom placed on you. I don't think a first offense would lead to anything, but you should be careful in future. Ilkali (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In particular, and  are two reverts on the same day.  Please consider this your official warning/reminder and be careful.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I only just noticed these posts.
 * Some comments.
 * The problem at singular they is a rude editor, Abtract, who knows better and should be dealt with.
 * If others do something about him, then I don't need to do I? So step in and sort him out, otherwise I'll do it for us, whenever I happen to log in to this account.
 * It is precisely the same issue and editor as at Gender of God. I mentioned it at ArbCom and nothing has been done.
 * Regarding reverts, if anyone thinks I'm going to keep track of reverts I make from this account over the course of a week, they are much mistaken. I'll make reverts like anyone else when they are called for, and whenever I happen to review the watchlist here. If this is ever more than one a week, it will mean someone is trying to force an unhelpful change at an article I watch. Talk to them, not me.
 * Finally, ArbCom was closed before my evidence was complete. I cannot endorse or support any ArbCom decision that was made without my participation. Hence, I do not feel in any way party to whatever conclusions it may have come to.
 * Abtract's actions at singular they prove the incompleteness of the ArbCom, however it finished up (I was too busy in RL to catch up with what happened at the end). Someone should be alerting people to what Abtract is doing and reopening the case.
 * Until the case is reopened or reviewed I have no further comment to make regarding it. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's not how this is going to happen. You are, of course, welcome to appeal or request clarification on the Arbcom ruling, but its remedies will nonetheless apply until they are explicitly overturned.  I'm sorry you feel the need to disregard them, because you would do so at your own peril:  if you revert more often than once a week you will be blocked whether you agree with the ruling or not. At any rate, if you feel someone is damaging an article, bring it up to the talk page or enlist the help of other editors; if someone is trying to force unhelpful changes others will agree and will help.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Alastair, I have reverted as I feel the piece is better improved by referencing if there rather than not there, but if you can get a third party reference that would be highly prudent to avoid speculation it is OR. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Alastair...FWitsW, Abstract is involved in another ArbCom resolution @ editor LessHeard vanU,I think is his name. I am surprised that a problem editors history doesnt follow him around like a bad smell.--Buster7 (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I could take that as a personal attack but being a nice, sweet natured, person I won't ... just don't make a habit of it please. Oh and Haines is quite well aware of my history without you tattling. Abtract (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia Community has a right, if not an obligation, to rid itsef of problem editors that stand in the way of the work to be done. Good Faith Editors need to share the meanderings of troublesome characters. Its what a community does. Pick up the litter! Throw out the trash! It's a good thing. Commendable. Sometimes we humans get stuck in a certain role. A certain part we play. The Villain! Iago! We get so lost in our misadventures and we mistake them for reality. What a wicked web........--Buster7 (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Replies to everyone.


 * Coren, you are doing absolutely the right thing, it is your job to uphold decisions of ArbCom without being drawn into debate regarding them. I expect you to do your job, you've always done it well and graciously in my experience. The situation unfortunately puts us at odds. Block away any time, you'll have no argument or bad feeling from me about it. You'll simply be in the sad situation of enforcing a ruling I cannot willingly assent to comply with. I'm perfectly happy to be blocked, how can I lose anything from that? I'm just sad for Wiki.
 * My job is different to yours, it is that of any ordinary editor, contributing, refining or protecting text from vandalism. Rarely, reverts are part of that. I shall do as I have always done. When others refuse to take their changes to the talk page, or ignore what is there, is the only time I revert anyone a second time, as is clear from two years of well-known flawless editing you must be clearly aware of by now.
 * It is also my job to call "foul" when the system or its representatives err. But as for appealing the decision, I'm not willing for everyone's time to be further wasted on processes that have only repeatedly failed to defend me from personal attacks and obstruction of my editing. It's not a fatal flaw in Wiki or its processes, it's just that this case has been repeatedly handled badly. I'm sure there are other cases like it, but in the end, it's no big deal. The whole process is instructive to all in the vulnerability to slander from anonymity that arises by taking a responsible approach to editing in one's own name.


 * Cas, thanks for stepping in and reverting my revert. At the least, the first clause is cited, and should be restored. Guess where you can find that Becky is the person refered to! ;) You will also note that Thackeray is refered to later in the article, because he uses both "singular" they and generic he, showing clearly that style, not simply a grammatical rule, has guided well-known writers. You will also note that Shakespeare is refered to more than once, as is the rationale for his usage. By rights, these should also be removed if Thackeray is. Better is an inline cite request at all four locations. They are actually important descriptions of uncontroversial forms of usage of "singular" they. See the talk page for a recent discussion of other subtleties with an astute reader during the last week.
 * In any case, if Abtract is given the benefit of the doubt in accusing me of some kind of POV (just what kind of POV is not clear), perhaps I can be given the benefit of the doubt that he is stalking me, having seen from my contribs that I'd been active in discussion on that page recently. Recent history at Manliness is also interesting, especially the edit from an anonymous account with a contribution history of only one edit. Abtract has also recently taken an interest in Scripture. He seems to share interest in exactly the subjects and even articles I've edited recently.


 * Buster, thanks again for your support. The only thing I'd say is that it's not Abtract's history, whatever it is, that concerns me, it's his present edits.


 * Finally, Abtract, please keep it up! As Lisa noted, she thought you were a friend of mine, trying to make the handful of people who criticised me at Gender of God look really bad, by speaking on their behalf with rudeness. You are demonstrating, yet again, precisely why I removed your talk page comments at that article and how creative I was in attempting to circumvent your obstructions there without technically edit warring. Just because people haven't worked that out yet doesn't mean they can't go back and check and discover what they overlooked.
 * But the bottom line is, however rude and however obstructive other editors may be, and however slow the processes may work to defend me, erroneously blocking me along the way, I will defend Wikipedia as an awesome platform for advancing co-operative learning, and committed good-faith editors as adequate to protect it. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll simply add to that that your ability to revert obvious vandalism from Wikipedia is not affected: the ruling specifically excludes it from the reversion limit (and, indeed, so does the usual three-revert version. Simply keep in mind that edits made in good faith, even if you disagree with their contents, are not vandalism.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Coren, I remember that from your post notifying me of the decision.
 * Unfortunately what is a good faith edit and what is vandalism is not always an objective matter. The current case is an example. The deleted text parallels text above it explaining Shakespeare, and is part of the explanation of the example of the second type of usage. Thackeray's usage is also refered to a second time later in the article. That their refers to Becky is sourced on the text of the book quoted.
 * Additionally, although asked to discuss the matter on the talk page, Abtract refused to do so, he has also made similar edits at other articles presumably drawn from observing my contribution history. That doesn't look like good faith editing from Abtract to me. As I've noted on his talk page, I'm quite happy to treat such edits as vandalism, if I'm blocked for doing so, that appears to be Wiki legalism to me. It's pretty obvious Abtract is exploiting the weaknesses of the ArbCom to be provocative in line with his outrageous and unaddressed language there.
 * I've not got time to discuss such petty and obvious misbehaviour by other editors beyond the simple, clear standard steps I took in the current case. The onus is on Abtract (or others) to be willing to discuss opposed changes, not on me. He's been warned. You've been notified. No more needs to be said. Have a nice day. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Uncials
I think about small corrections in our list.

Or in this way:

It will be easier to find any uncial codex. Do you agree? In last time Categories of New Testament manuscripts were translated into Arabian. It was made by ar:مستخدم:Lavivier. Lavivier translated a lot of biblical articles. Some of these articles are not translated into French, German, and other languages. He makes a good work. It is nice. That is why I prefer editing on en-wiki, although sometimes I translate too. With kind regards.

Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think, I found a sollution. Redirect pages are the best. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Polish Tatry it is not a big place, although two weeks were not enough too see everything. There are several chalets. The tents are not usefull because of several reasons, f.e. after the sunset a bears can be dangerous.


 * In last time I created Category:Greek-Coptic diglot manuscripts of the New Testament, but unfortunately it is too long name. It could be better if it was shorter, like: "Greek-Coptic diglot mss of NT".
 * An article Coptic versions of the Bible is almost finished, but without section "Old Testament". Perhaps in the Future somebody will do that. This article is not proffesional, and it was not my ambition.


 * Some things I had learned from you, f.e. tables. My first tables were recoped from List of New Testament papyri, and after reworking edited on pl-wiki. Also reflists, references etc. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit Request
Hi Alastair. I saw your name at WP:PRV and I thought you might be able help me out with a copyedit. I've got Melbourne Airport up at WP:FAC now and a good solid copyedit would do wonders. Thanks in advance. Mvjs (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

είστε εδώ;
πού είστε; I'm getting worried over here. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A Sydney Meetup
G'day all - I'm dropping this note in to let you know that there's to be a Wiki Meetup the week after next, on Tuesday, 21st at 18:00 at The Paragon in Circular Quay. If you've ever thought about popping along to one of these, but haven't had the chance - now's the time! If you love the idea, but the time and / or place don't quite work for you, please do feel free to wiki edit away at the meetup page and I'm sure we can sort something out :-) Meetups are a great way to share wiki-thoughts, meet wiki-friends, and generally learn how to prefix all areas of your life with wiki- :-)

It's a very friendly bunch, and we're hoping to be able to formally collect membership fees and details for the Australian Chapter (did you know that we're the only current english speaking chapter? Join now for kudos and future bragging rights!) - as well as just generally have a good 'ol time. I look forward to seeing you there :-) best, Privatemusings (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick question
I have been reverted several times by two editors that team-up against me, since it is written in one of their talk pages to team up together to go against my opinion. One of the editors is removing the whole "see also" section of an article, and I am simply against it. The proof is there, in their talk page and in all the edits when I am constantly asking to talk about it. What would you suggest to do? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Pope Clement I
I've put in a move request for Pope Clement I to Clement of Rome. See talk:Pope Clement I. Leadwind (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've replied on my talk page, as I prefer to keep discussions in one place for clarity's sake. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Waif
You may remember me. I was that little "waif" that entered your open talk page door a few monthes ago...;>)... You were very kind and said you would "teach me the ropes"...and then........you disappeared. I am glad to say that I survived in the Wilderness that is WikiWorld. But, the forest was lonely and the dragons were agitated. I am elated that you have returned, good sir. Truly, it makes a difference to know that you are near...:>)...--Buster7 (talk) 12:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Great challenges face us as a people. But we now face them together...as a team. I voted for him and worked for him because he will bring us together, unify us, make us whole. There are many rivers to cross. A new and bright future is possible because of what was decided yesterday. I pray that this man will continue to be a leader for America and for the World. We have been without a guide for so very long.--Buster7 (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Vithoba
Vithoba is a failed Featured article candidate, primary concerns were lack of coherence and topic sentences and Reliable sources. I am working on RS issue. Please look at the article in view of copyediting and point out any lack of coherence and topic sentences. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not in much hurry, it will take me some more time for RS. Please look at the article when you are free. Please leave me a note when you start working. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the improvement. I noticed you removed who Crooke was. In the FAC, an editor said "Well, don't you think context is missing in the Etymology and other names section. You haven't mentioned any context for Crooke, R. G. Bhandarkar and all other big names there. Who are they. What makes them notable." Also User: Anish added who Crooke etc. were, i suppose he shares the same view. I am open to any view. I said in the FAC "All of them are authors or religious scholars for sure. Adding "scholar XYZ" before every name will make the text repetitive. Even FA Ganesha uses "Martin-Dubost says..", "Krishan notes that..", "Paul Courtright says that...", "..as Robert Brown explains.." The references indicate that they are authors." --Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure about "the central figure in Anglo-Indian folklore" according to Richard Mercer Dorson. I think it is an WP:UNDUE. I am moving it in the Crooke article and retaining just orientalist.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, i read your message. The issue of adding who Crooke etc. were, was also encountered in WikiProject India/Peer review/Vithoba, "Hastings too supports, Khare suggests "Vitthala -- > who are these people. Mention the designations/authority. eg Historian Hastings etc (global comment)". So i think may be words like historian, prof, scholar, orientalist should be embedded in the Vithoba text. I searching for a MOS or finding how other articles have handled the issue. Til then, let's work on the text of our Vithoba article.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, i noticed you cleaned up Varkari. Thanks. I plan to add to that article new references, which i found while researching for Vithoba. I request you to please look at Vithoba article at the moment, I want to initiate the FAC again as soon as possible (before this month end if possible) as advised at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics. The last FAC took about a month and i will busy around 25 Dec. So want to finish before. IMO, The doubts about references are addressed, the prose issues remain. The article needs a prose polish. It will be highly appreciated if you raise Vithoba to the same prose standards as Anekantavada. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * added the new info provided by you. You forgot to sign on Talk:Vithoba. Leaving the saint-poet and dashes to your discretion. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * i read your "Plurals in English" section, I totally agree with you about the inconsistencies in English with capitals and plurals of Indic words, but these are not introduced by me or you but Reliable academic sources have used the words that way, so IMO, it is better to follow them. I have added new info in Legends and Identifications, please reword them in better English. Your edits yesterday to "Origins and development" have really changed the look and flow of the section, it's much smoother now. Great work and Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. When you finish copyediting the article from your side, please leave a note on the article talk formally announcing it. So i can invite User:Michael Devore who raised "Minor issues" on the talk and User:Kensplanet of WikiProject India Assesement Department to take a final look at the article before a FAC. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Lucky Penny
I sent the "parts" to Miguel.mateo as an idea for an award for him and he put the parts together. You are the second Wikipedian to get a Lucky Penny. I hope they become popular.--Buster7 (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

William Crooke and William Crooke (photographer)
There are 2 William Crooke articles, but both have the same photo uploaded by you. If both articles are about 1 individual, they should be merged. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 09:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Papyrus 110
I am happy, that you edit again. Today I have created article Papyrus 110, but I know it is not good stylisticly. If you have a time, I hope you can sacrifice a few minutes for this article. Perhaps it will better if table will not so broad. I have decided to create all articles for papyri and uncial manuscripts of NT. What about minuscules and lectionaries? Actually I do not know. But I know it will be problem with the tables. In one article more than 2000 manuscripts, it is too much. I do not know, but I like this work. Perhaps we need an article "Textual variants of New Testament" (only notable variants), but for now I do not have any idea how to do this. I will stop editing in 25-29 November, because of my visit in Edinburgh. I hope I will find a something interesting in a library (libraries?). I have never visited Scotland before. It is good that several users think about List of textual variants, because we need it. I can cooperate. But I think we need not only list, but also article which will explain in a systematic and methodical way defferences between manuscripts. Of course it will not easy. On user-page of Andrew c I saw that he is planned to create an article Text-type (biblical criticism). Yes we need it. By the way I like news from you. Your dissertation is about Oxyrhynchus Papyri. I whish success for you. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * After your work, I do not recognize my article. Now it is much better. You are very good wiki-editor. The best that I know. With the best regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, It is good material for thinking. I only followed the article of Elliot from "Novum Testamentum" 42, 3. I know well, my style of writing is hard (even in Polish or Russian). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Uncial 0212
Today I created only one article Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft (you created a lot of articles like this, f.e. Revue Biblique), but I concentrated my editing on the article Uncial 0212. It is very important witness of the Diatessaron. Our knowledge about the Diatessaron was changed after discovering of this manuscript (perhaps 6 000 bytes is not ehough for this article, but not now).

Papyrus 110 was nominated to DYK. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know. Of course it is a result of your copy-edit work. I am your doubter. I should give you The Copyeditor's Barnstar (before Christmas). Of course you have it, but what shall I do?

I am shure, we do not need more stub articles about manuscripts, we need longer articles (at least 5 000 bytes). Unfortunatelly not always it is possible. From month to month collection of my books slowly grows. I am still do not have: Caspar René Gregory, Die griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments (Leipzig 1908), but it is only a metter of time. I have not complete book Soden's, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte, (Berlin 1902–1910), but I have half.

Perhaps I will not have opportunity to visit library of the Oxford University (two hours are not satisfy me), but maybe I will do some xero from biblical journals before 1988. In Polish libraries is very difficult to find journals published in the West before 1988. Of course communism collapsed in 1989, but in 1988 we had almost everything except of free election. With the best regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for a copyedit
Hi. I currently have Richard Mohun listed at WP:GAN and Anne Teedham has looked over the article and advised that I get a copyedit from someone listed at WP:PRV. I noticed your name there and wondered if you could take a look at the article for me. I have read through it a few times and cannot seem to improve it past its current state. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Gender of God
What you are doing at Gender of God is edit warring- stop now. Per the arbitration ruling I could block both of you right now, but I'm a nice person, I'm giving you a chance to stop. Consider yourself warned. L'Aquatique [talk  ] 08:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong, what the others are doing is edit warring. You have already proved yourself incapable of making sound judgements at that article. I recommend you leave things to other people. You have lots to offer Wiki, please enjoy it elsewhere. Better would be self-correction and apologies. But let's just leave it shall we. No bad feelings. Cheerio. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, what all of you are doing is edit warring, and I have done nothing to show myself to be incapable of making sound judgements anywhere. But this isn't about me, this is about you and Ilkali; both of you are either going to stop by your own free will or I will place blocks. End of discussion. L'Aquatique [talk  ] 08:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh! Flawless administrating, eh? I think you are perfectly entitled to that opinion of yourself, and have no inclination to dispute it. However, supposing you were right, others could manage things, so there's no need to stay when you're not welcome. But, your appearance here seems to me to be all about your personal problems with me. Leave me alone and they go away. Now discussion is ended. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's brilliant reasoning you have going on there. Unfortunately, your arbcom restriction clearly stated that you were allowed one revert per page per week... let's see... 1, and 2. No matter what you think of my administrative abilities, you can't reason away your edit warring. You really should have stopped when I warned you. L'Aquatique [talk  ] 08:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an  edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. The adminstrator above appears wilfully set on abusing administrator priveleges to further her personal crusade against this user. I have reported this previously and nothing was done. I have absolutely no inclination to waste time playing silly political games with such people. This administrator is enforcing removal of information from the Oxford English Dictionary from Wikipedia. Administrators are not authorised to unilaterally set themselves up as sources superior to published academics like the OED. They have the tools to do so, but not the right. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are free to request an unblock should you so desire. It's easy to paint me as the bad guy here, but I'm just enforcing the restrictions that arbcom put on you. I don't care if the material you posted is referenced to God Himself, if you edit war, you lose the opportunity for people to take you seriously. This isn't about the suitability of the material- you have to take that up with the other editors of the page. This block is about the fact that despite being bluntly told by arbcom, you still seem to feel that you're above the rules and are allowed to revert all you want. It doesn't work that way. So- request an unblock if you believe the block was unfair. <font color="#3c3c3c">L'Aquatique <font color="#5c9e83">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#5c9e83">talk  ] 09:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional comment. The administrator replied to my message above, with typical misunderstandings and misrepresentations of facts, speculations about motives, slights at my character and casual blasphemy "I don't care if God himself", to quote the administrator. She inadvertantly reveals her own motives in the process. She wants people to take her seriously. She's here at Wiki to get people's attention and approbation. She thinks she's "earned that right."
 * A casual passer by may wonder why would someone be so angry against Alastair? The answer is simple, I got in the way, not only was I willing to say I thought she was wrong, I proved she was wrong ... but here's the thing ... in front of others. Some people don't take that kind of thing well. I'm guessing, but it's just normal, human stuff. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's very clever. Remove all my comments and then misquote me. Unfortunately, anyone who is looking into this would look at the diff and clearly see that there were no slights against your character, no blasphemy, and no speculations about motives. If you want to be unblocked, request an unblock. <font face="Georgia"><font color="#3c3c3c">L'Aquatique <font color="#5c9e83">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#5c9e83">talk  ] 09:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Finally, if anyone had any serious doubt as to whether Alastair had actually been doing the right thing. It's fairly obvious that someone, who has no history of saying rude things against him could have left documentation of reasonable discussion at this page. Nope, no one has done this. I'm afraid this is just personal. Sadly, it only takes one party to cause issues, but it takes two to stop them. It's sad, isn't it? Unfortunately, it's not sad for me, it's sad for my hard-working friends here. That part does distress me. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Alastair Haines, you made a comment at 08:55, and L'Aquatique replied to it here, after which you removed it and proceeded to misquote it at 09:24 here. What L'Aquatique actually said was "I don't care if the material you posted is referenced to God Himself, if you edit war, you lose the opportunity for people to take you seriously." Misquoting or mistating what another person said can be serious, and the manner in which you've done so is extremely disruptive. Please stop. I'm trusting that you won't let this happen again in the future; but if it does, your talk page will be protected as Ryulong indicates below. I hope that further sanctions need not be imposed upon you by the Arbitration Committee. In the mean time, the deleted comments have been restored for transparency. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Before this gets further out of hand, to say that Alastair misquoted is stretching things to far. Please consider these two:
 * "I don't care if the material you posted is referenced to God Himself, if you edit war, you lose the opportunity for people to take you seriously."
 * "I don't care if God Himself wrote the material you posted, if you edit war, you lose the opportunity for people to take you seriously."
 * There is no functional difference between the two. Alastair, please take a break for a bit.  I need to catch up. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you John! Yes, I paraphrased. Thank you. I am glad Ncm's comments are there, because it provides a very mild example of what half-a-dozen individuals have been doing for a long while. Making credible but wrong assertions with implications (or much more) about my character. It has never been acceptable, and it has never been remedied. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If anything needs to be discussed with me, L'Aquatique simply doesn't have to be the one to do it. In fact, she doesn't discuss, she demands, and things that are contrary to policy. It's not helpful for Wiki or for her to be involved. I've got no problem with her, and I'd like her to change. But there's simply no need to work together if she can't bring herself to do it. So I am imposing a ban on L'Aquatique at my talk page. Surely there are better things for her to do than hang around my page anyway, I'm not taking anything from her or from Wiki to do it. If she'd like things to change, she can e-mail me any time, and I'll welcome her with open arms. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop commenting here, or I will lock this page, for your own good. I've finished what I was doing and will take a look at this now. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your help John, but I am the judge of what is appropriate response to personal attacks on myself. This is all the inevitable consequence of incomplete and imperfect management of previous issues. I appreciate your help, but I'm not asking for it, in fact, I recommend you spend your time on more important things than getting involved in something as full of silliness as this. You will do what you think best, and so will I of course. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't resist pointing out the humour of administrators edit warring at my talk page while expecting to be taken seriously as judges of what is and what is not edit warring. We're allowed to remove the Oxford from article pages, but you can't remove us from your own user page. Wow! It's funny, that's all. Have a giggle people. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to look into this by L'Aquatique. It is quite clear that you violated your ArbCom restrictions, and as such, this 48 hour block is warranted. What is not warranted is your constant removals of L'Aquatique's comments here. If you persist in this behavior, this talk page will be protected from editing until such time that the block expires.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * More documentation! A friend of L'Aquatique shows up to make more assertions rather than answer for her behaviour. This new party insists I have no right to edit my own talk page! Ignorance and rudeness are not the service Wikipedia expects its administrators to offer to its contributors. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

other material
Ncm, I would like you and John to discuss this elsewhere please. You guys have plenty of places to chat. At this point, all I have is this page, and I need it to deflect people from making more errors. I think you're making errors now, that's fine, but just do it elsewhere. Talk here, and I'm responsible to respond (related words used deliberately). Talk elsewhere and I don't need to worry, do I? Please go away, I'm asking nicely. I'm happy to chat more casual like, some other place, some other time. And feel free to e-mail. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If Alastair made a comment directly below (without removing the post), this could've been avoided. Alternatively, removing the post (without any further comment) would've also worked. Doing both does not. In my opinion at least, I can see a functional difference between L'Aquatique's original sentence "I don't care if the material you posted is referenced to God Himself, if you edit war, you lose the opportunity for people to take you seriously." and between Alastair's selective "paraphrasing" at 09:24 "The administrator replied to my message above, with typical misunderstandings and misrepresentations of facts, speculations about motives, slights at my character and casual blasphemy "I don't care if God himself", to quote the administrator. She inadvertantly reveals her own motives in the process. She wants people to take her seriously. She's here at Wiki to get people's attention and approbation. She thinks she's "earned that right."
 * The crux of the problem here was altering how the expression was used by L'Aquatique, and isolated from the L'Aquatique's entire original comment, this was simply not acceptable. Paraphrasing is OK, but it is NOT OK to misquote or misstate what another person said so that it is in a different context, particularly amidst ones own strong, but extreme views. Under the circumstances, I don't consider it "going too far" when categorizing Alastair's "paraphrasing" as a misquotation or mis-statement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * @ Ncmvocalist. Agreed. Alastair misquoted...a little. And Administrator L'Aqua misquoted...a little (Yes, apparently he had decided to "ban" us from his talk page.")   Alastair didn't ban "us", he only banned her.--Buster7 (talk) 03:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment for Vithoba talk page
I was in the middle of some work when rudely interupted above. Here are the clipboard contents so people can use the information.

Options
'' Here's a good example of needing some kind of consistency, so readers don't get distracted by wondering why things are changing.

Currently we have:
 * Varkari Panth (lit. "The Pilgrims' Path") or Varkari sampradaya (lit. "The Pilgrims' tradition")

This is a problem because the first two words look like a book title, which is what italics + capitals indicates—e.g. The Lord of the Rings. Foreign words are written in italics + lower case letters—honi soit qui mal y pense—unless they are names, in which case they are in capital letters without italics—Mao Zedong, Łódź Voivodeship. Theoretically, double quotation marks indicate quotations, of course—"To be or not to be"; but where the quotes indicate a translation, this is often done using single quotes—logos means 'word' in Greek. The last rule is not consistently applied. There are other uses of italics (for example, for emphasis) and of quotation marks (for example, to signal a "so called" something). In fact, when indicating that a word is being named rather than used, either of the last two methods can be found—e.g. the word we are discussing is worship, or the word we are discussing is "worship".

These things are all discussed in reliable sources, the rules have changed over time (and will continue to do so), they change from country to country and from one writer or publisher to another. A fair bit of variation is almost always allowed, but not within a single piece of writing. Each piece of writing should stick to its own rules wherever it got them, with the exception that when quoting another piece of writing, it should generally copy what that piece of writing did. The above is the right way to present the quote, although we do not spell philosopher with a capital P in English any longer, just as we don't spell Brahmin as Brackman. The italics in the last sentence indicated discussion of "words as words" not foreign language terms, and the quotes and italics just used indicated "so called" usage and emphasis, respectively. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)''
 * Brackmans, a sect of Philosophers in India. — Thomas Blount, ''Glossographia


 * I am copying this message to the Talk:Vithoba. I do not know the exact nature of Alastair Haines's edits that led to the block, so i would not comment about it. The thing i know is that this user has done great copy-editing work on the Vithoba article, completiely transforming the article IMO. I, as a major contributor to the article, value his contributions and am grateful to him.
 * To Alastair Haines, don't be disheartened. Treat this block as a much-needed vacation. You have been working on Vithoba for quite some time. After your vacation, you can complete your work at Vithoba. Article Vithoba awaits you. See you soon. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words, Tiger. I'm am not surprised to discover you are as much gentleman as scholar. May the Lord bless you! "Treat this block as a much-needed vacation." LoL Yes, my friend, I will. :D Alastair Haines (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Block extended
As I stated last night, I was going to prevent you from editing this talk page if you continued to remove comments left by administrators. I have restored all of the comments I believe I could. I am going to reset your block to an additional 48 hours from this point and it will be impossible for you to edit this page in that time.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 20:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, this situation seems to be deteriorating. I have not acted thus far as I have been busy elsewhere, and have not ahd time to read the diffs through properly. My concerns about this whole scenario are that L'Aquatique has had negative interactions with Alastair before this latest issue and hence blocking after arguing above has the appearance of being possibly punitive (yes I know it can be read otherwise as well). I am also concerned in what led up to the block in terms of context of who reverted who and why. I will come back to this. I also question the reblock above as possibly punitive rather than preventive. I acknowledge that I am a friend of Alastair so that my judgement is not impartial on this and I don't mean to flat out accuse anyone of impropriety just making sure it is all as it should be. Given I am not experienced in this area I will ask for an outside pair of eyes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick glance suggests that Alastair Haines reverted twice on the article within a week. That is a breach of the arbcom finding and the block is perfectly justified. Presumably Arbcom restricted the user for a reason so breaching a formal restriction is only asking for trouble. Spartaz Humbug! 23:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The original short block is sound, but L'Aquatique was the wrong person to do the block! This extension is wrong.  It is Alastair's talk page; he is a very valued contributor, and he can remove comments on his talk page as he wishes, within reason.  Please reverse this extension; it is not solving anything. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He was using this page inappropriately, and at most, his block has been extended another 12 hours than it would have been. It wasn't that he was removing comments. He was removing them so he would have the last word and paraphrasing them out of context. That is why he is not allowed to edit this page until his block expires.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This entire situation would have been avoided if L'Aquatique had reported this rather than doing the block - he quite rightly objects to that, as L'Aquatique is involved. Sadly arbcom didnt add a clause to require that the parties can only be blocked by an uninvolved admin.  I have initiated a RFAR clarification on that now.  He is permitted to remove them per Talk_page_guidelines, however I appreciate that the way he did it was not ideal.  I had objected to the way his paraphrasing was being used against him, and now you are using it as the foundation of a block extension.  You restored comments that he had removed; fine - revert and protect, but the block aggravates the situation. This block was not ideal from the beginning, and has been getting worse since then. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that the extension to the block is ill advised. As it is unfair, unreasonable, and hypocritical for us to post to Alastair's talk page while he is himself forbidden to do so, I suggest we ALL take a break until his block expires.  Otherwise, Alastair is reduced to an object. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, John. This entire situation would not have been avoided had the blocking party been someone else. Notice he responded the same way to Ryulong as to me. The problem here is not the blocker, but the blockee. <font face="Georgia"><font color="#3c3c3c">L'Aquatique <font color="#5c9e83">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#5c9e83">talk  ] 02:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At the most Alastair is guilty of jaywalking. The problem is that the same officer keeps arresting him for minor offenses. Administrators should have at least a little sense of propriety in the area of surveillance.--Buster7 (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So now edit warring and violation of arbcom imposed editing restrictions is a minor offense? Templating the regulars is a minor offense. Edit warring is not. <font face="Georgia"><font color="#3c3c3c">L'Aquatique <font color="#5c9e83">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#5c9e83">talk  ] 04:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend case
See RFAR clarification. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 01:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just passing by...
Ummm... I was just passing by and happened to become intrigued at this case. I have spent some time now looking through the history on this talk page, as well as reading through Wikipedia etiquette here, here and everywhere else. If you want my opinion, I do not see anything wrong with how this user (Alastair) handled his own talk page. This even seem to me that there has been "User space harassment" by some outside editors who restored comments on this talk page that this User had deleted. Just some two cents thrown in by someone who knows nobody here :) <font face="Courier New" size="4" color="red">T <font color="red" face="Courier New" size="4">B <font color="black" face="Courier New" size="3">erg   <font color="#7d7d7d">Drop a Line <font color ="black" size=4>ޗ pls  02:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too
Hope all is well Alistair.  LoveMonkey (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I sympathize with you Alistair, not allowed to write in your own talk page is ridiculous. Why nobody proposed to take this discussion somewhere else outside of Alistair's talk page? Instead another ban??? I am sure he wouln't remove others' comments if they were somewhere else.


 * An finally, administrators, regardless of what the arbcom said, can someone PLEASE take a look at the reverts Alistair did? He reverted the removal of citations to the Oxford dictionary; those removals can be considered vandalism, and the arbcom results clearly said he is entitled to remove vandalism.  Also, the second revert used as a sample to block him, is a revert he did to himself (at least those are the references given by the admin who blocked him)!


 * Just my two yen opinion ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Removal of cited material is in many cases not vandalism. In this case the material was part of a content dispute, and repeatedly re-adding material during a content dispute is edit warring. There seems to be a misconception here that if something is cited it is automatically warrants inclusion- this is not true, both in terms of common sense and in terms of policy. <font face="Georgia"><font color="#3c3c3c">L'Aquatique <font color="#5c9e83">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#5c9e83">talk  ] 07:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Read your second reference please, he is reverting his own edits. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite- he did a partial revert of his own material. However, some material remained. <font face="Georgia"><font color="#3c3c3c">L'Aquatique <font color="#5c9e83">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#5c9e83">talk  ] 07:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the history, he is clearly reverting himself, you added the references, you can check it yourself. L'Aquatique: you're taking this too personal, IMO. Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking this personally at all. You don't seem to understand the policy, I am trying to explain it to you. <font face="Georgia"><font color="#3c3c3c">L'Aquatique <font color="#5c9e83">[<font face="Monotype Corsiva"><font color="#5c9e83">talk  ] 07:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have said everything I needed to say, and it is up to you how to take it and how to apply "the policies" (how can you be serious and block a person because he reverted himself?). It is not cool at all (and Wikipedia should not allow it) that you're acting as witness, prosecutor and judge at the same time in this case. I will make a new barnstar for you: "The Sheriff Barnstar: for taking the law in your own hands". Now, go ahead and block me too, I think I deserve it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that Administrator L'Aquatique is blind to the negative personal involvement and the animosity that she has toward Alastair is most upsetting. She went after him as her very first act as an Administrator. It was almost as tho she had him in her sights from the very beginning. She should be banned from any contact whatsoever having to do with Editor Alastair. Her animus toward him certainly seems irreconcilable.--Buster7 (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Take Five Folks
As long as Alastair is banned from his own talk page, we are ALL committing vandalism by posting to it. Besides that, it's really creepy. Can we all take a break until he's no longer a gagged punching bag? SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We are all showing support of how unfair we think the process had been in this case, I am sure he is reading these notes. Miguel.mateo (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think he is, and approves (and it still creeps me out to talk like that because it sounds like I'm at a funeral). SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Kirill has suggested a years banishment for Alastair. Should we sit on our fingers and let that happen? Arbitration cases are initiated to further the project. As supporters of the project and of Alastair we are called to his defense. The project will be harmed if banishment is approved. We need to convince the decision makers that, in spite of what his adversaries say, Alastair is one of the best editors we know.--Buster7 (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right. He is one of the best wiki-editors we know. I agree with you. "A years of banishment" - it cannot be done. You must be joking. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A very big thank you to Tim for showing how to use a talk page respectfully and to encourage fellow volunteers in this wonderful world of Wiki. :)
 * And a very big thank you to everyone for giving me nice things to read while surfing other sites from time to time during my holiday.
 * Together, you said, better than I could, all that needed to be said. Bravo! Alastair Haines (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

perspective
Hello friends and Wikipedians! :)

I have just had a nice holiday and got a number of important things done in real life. I will be posting here regarding the incident above and related matters in a little while. But, just now, my first priority at Wikipedia will be to complete what was unfinished at Vithoba. After that, I will continue to speak and act freely to improve and maintain Wikipedia, though experience has shown that there are people who wish to silence fair criticism when it is offered by me, and obstruct my editing by enforcements. I will comment about that further, here, later.

To people, especially my friends, who may be a little anxious about all this. The most important thing to remember is Wikipedia is a wonderful place based on a concept of giving volunteers an opportunity to do useful things like writing, reviewing, administrating or mediating based on their willingness, ability and good faith, not based on their training and qualification. That, in my opinion, is a system that works. It is beautifully egalitarian. It wins consensus by its generosity and wisdom, and needs little to no enforcement to maintain.

As I shall point out later, the exchange above, and the history behind it, are just minor ongoing issues arising as a trivial conflict has lead to exposing slightly more serious problems with people and parts of the system. The issues would be easily handled informally, which would avoid the public embarassment that various volunteer officials are bringing to themselves.

As mentioned, I have a little more to say, and will do so here within the next day or two. In the meantime, and whatever the outcome of future events, my friends will serve me best by serving Wikipedia and common human decency best. Wikipedia is an extraordinarily good thing, and its processess and the people who staff them full of wisdom. They are, of course, not perfect—if they were, none of us would be here or have any work to do! Imperfections at Wikipedia, in people or processes, are not threats to be defensive about, but challenges calling for generous and humble co-operation between volunteers. Conflict is part of growth, when managed civilly. Don't panic! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

comments
I notice no one has commented, that's a good thing. I know I promised I'd comment further, but I have changed my mind. Reference is made by various people above to an ArbCom case that I think was handled badly, but that I wasn't willing to push to review process. I am now even more confident of my previous decision, despite the fact that ongoing problems have resulted because of flaws in that case. I am now overwhelmed with sympathy for ArbCom members. Please friends, avoid even thinking of taking disputes to those unfairly busy volunteers. Whatever your problems, they are not as bad as other people's (I know that can't always be true, but you know what I mean). For me, the future is "be kind to ArbCom", don't hassle them, they do their best and they know they're not perfect, proving it proves nothing new.

The heat is off ArbCom in my opinion, but that means it comes back on us to be bold in assisting one another in conflicts. Many of you have done just that at my talk page above. Thank you. I don't anticipate much difficulty with conflicts in future. In more than two years at Wiki, I've only had serious trouble from a handful of editors at one article that normally gets little attention. The conflict has actually led to some good editors dropping by. Most articles I visit are full of hard-working polite people, sometimes with sincere differences of opinion, but nothing that can't be managed without too much drama.

I should make a final comment for any people who may discover me doing things ArbCom didn't want me doing. I doubt there will be much or any of that, but it is certainly possible. Every edit I make at Wiki, except one joke, has been and I expect always will be aimed at improving or maintaining it. Sometimes my judgment may be wrong, if anyone thinks so, say so, but stick to Wiki rules, assume good faith and remember that the bottom line is assessing edits for improvement or maintenance of Wiki. Criticism of edits is a kind of edit and is subject to the same rules as original edits. Neither he who edits first, nor he who edits second can be assumed to be correct, only good faith should be assumed.

Sadly, because of conflict like that documented on my page above, if my edits are opposed on presumptions of bad faith, or appeals to ArbCom, you will not find a receptive audience. Such approaches are clear signals of bad faith in the critic. I'll do my best to work with them, but a friendly question will always be more constructive and probably lead to a happy outcome.

In case it's not clear why it is pointless assuming bad faith or appealing to ArbCom, if my edit is correct, and in good faith, it will stand in the end anyway, and my opposing your invalid approach to criticism will be part of that process. Not only that, I have invested all the time I choose to in dealing with certain forms of invalid criticism. Approach me in an adversarial fashion and I'm afraid I won't have time to be kind to you, I'll just call in the cavalry. Thanks to past attacks, many friends have now assured me I shouldn't be shy to ask for their help. I hate to ask people to waste their time on conflict to help me, but I need friends to do this for me and they are willing. I will aim to assist others in their conflicts, but my own are going to be fought by my friends. I didn't ask people to do this for me, they have offered freely. Please people, don't fight me, you'll only steal time from my hard-working friends.

I thank everyone who responded to the "situation" above from the bottom of my heart. I hope your generosity will not be called upon again, but I know life is not that simple, so I thank my God for my friends. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)