User talk:Archola/1

It seems that Jesus has come to bring not peace, but a sword! Please leave messages relating to the Jesus articles on this subpage: User talk:Archola/Jesus Christ! = Welcome to Wikipedia! =

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:
 * Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
 * Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).
 * Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Take a look at Consensus of standards
 * Create a User page
 * Be bold
 * Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alf 15:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC).

= IP =

Yes that was me. Must have forgotten to sign in. —Aiden 04:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

=Sophistry= ''content moved to /Sophistry.

=Socks and vandals=

I promise not to use the nick name again but it was a new one to me and it really made me laugh. Don't worry no one will get the wrong idea as thanks to the sock thing they all know I'm a married woman! I've just ignored Raisinman as he's obviously got an agenda that doesn't include improving the article. Incidentally there is some suspicion flying around that User:Robeaston99 and User:Robsteadman may a pair of knitted coverings for feet. SOPHIA 18:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Robeaston99 certainly has a connection to User:Robsteadman (look at Easton99's edit history), but I think we should assume good faith that Ronsteadman wouldn't stoop to such behavior. KHM03 18:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I e-mailed Rob before I left the message above. A check user would confirm of course but I would be very surprised if a physical link was shown. I guess he's a student or mate of Rob's - stubborn he maybe daft he is not. SOPHIA 19:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * At this point I agree. Arch O. La 19:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for barging in, but I'm just curious how you can be so sure they're not linked when the only articles User:Robeaston99 has edited are Robert Steadman, Jesus (a vote) and Historicity of Jesus (a vote), articles very related to User:Robsteadman and even the name Robeaston is similar to Robsteadman, yet in the case of Deskana where he uses a public IP address that has been found vandalising before you were so sure he was the culprit. WP:AGF and all, no doubt, I'm just curious how this is so much more of a clear-cut case than Deskanas which you pursued and rob wants a permanent ban for. --Oscillate 19:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There may be a link...they could be friends. But, we should assume good faith on the part of Robsteadman.  Also, I don't think there's any way Deksana will be permanently banned, even if he admitted total guilt.  KHM03 19:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly, just as all we can say about Deskana and the vandal is that they edited from the same college. Arch O. La 19:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, I understand that and have no intentions other than honest curiosity as to how sophia came about the different judgements. --Oscillate 19:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Did SOPHIA come to a judgement about the vandalism, or is she simply acting as an advocate for Rob? I'll let her answer the question; I just think we should be clear. Arch O. La 20:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was going off her comments where she certainly seems very suspect (and continues to be) about Deskana's role in the vandalism; but with Robeaston whose edits have 100% only been Robsteadman-related (including two votes where Robsteadman also voted), you all are sure there is no link, not even a tiny discussion. To be clear, I'm not pursuing anything, nor do I want to start an accusation - I'm just confused. Is this to avoid hassle with rob or what? --Oscillate 20:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC) -- WP:AGF, clearly. --Oscillate 20:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we all agree there's a link, we're just not sure if the link is direct or indirect. I've tried to be consistent about both issues (and fair to both sides), so my own position is that for both Robeaston99 and Deskana, there was a link, but it was an indirect link. That's a hypothesis (not a conclusion) that is amenable to further evidence. Beyond that, I can only let others speak for themselves. Arch O. La 20:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I resent the above accusations that I am linked to robeaston99 - particularly from DESKANA after his recent vandalism of my page be honest, you were responsible). I have no idea whjo robeaston99 is and I do not operate a sockpuppet. Now kindly retract your accusations and insinuations. After deskana's vandalism and the quorum/cabal calls and strangers turning up to supprt the unebncyclopedic version on the vote this is outrageous. And all a bit familiar from the way you all tried to get rid of SOPHIA. Robsteadman 22:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine, I retract. The bigger issue is the perceived irregularaties of the current vote, an assertion that both sides have made. BTW I never tried to get rid of SOPHIA, in fact I helped to encourage her to come back. Arch O. La 22:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I really didn't want to go into this as I think there is nothing to be gained but more bad feeling all round. I have done this job professionally and so maybe I'm being too impersonal about this - sysadmins do not AGF in these situations - they check all available facts and see how they stack up with the account of the user. Let's just say that if I had access to the logs I could confirm some aspects of his account where he has been a bit vague or contradicted himself about being logged on/not having time to log on. I have met initial responses to investigations like this before and experience has taught me that it usually means they are hedging their bets as they are not sure what you can find out. I might have jumped to conclusions but his lack of apology to Rob and his initial "tough it out" stance did not do him any favours in my view. Neither did the fact that he admitted to knowing about the vandalism from that IP but did nothing about it - I don't think he ever thought it could be linked back to an IP he had access to - it was his bad luck that a previous checkuser had revealed the location of the IP address. Even more bad luck for him was that I put two and two together. The guy is young so this all may be mistakes due to inexperience. I have seen Deskana wind Rob up - maybe you have to be on the other side to realise some of his posts are just one line comments that flame the debate without adding content. I have not said anything as Rob is a grown up and as I said before Deskana is still quite young. I also wonder what Deskana said to his friend to make him think it would be funny to put notices about being homosexual and a friend of jesus on Rob's user page. To completely exonerate him is naive and I suspect if this happened to some of the editors who have been supportive of Deskana they would feel differently. Interestingly enough - the only person who has nasty messages on their page about this is me. As they say "shoot the messenger". I'm also not happy that because Rob has different views to most of the editors and they have been frustrated by him no one thought he was due an apology. I have seen a lot of support for Deskana but I was the one who had to point out that he owes Rob an apology. Courtesy shouldn't be restricted along partisan lines.


 * As for the Robeaston99 - I have said I would be surprised if it was a sock purely because I grant Rob more intelligence than to be that obvious - he works in a school so has access to IP's other than his own and he has seen all the Giovanni/SOPHIA sock stuff so is fully aware of what checks can be done and what will ring alarm bells.


 * I've just been edit clashed - Rob - Archola is not one of the ones I think you are angry with. I would be pretty fed up if I'd been vandalised and everyone was saying supportive words to the person either directly or indirectly responsible but Archola does not belong in that group. SOPHIA 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I did appear as sort of a character witness at Deskana's trial. Deskana is young (17) and I think that even if it was his friend who was guilty, it would be good if Deskana were to apologize for being indirectly responsible. This is the sort of thing that "builds character" (I hated when my father used that phrase, but I've grown old and wise enough to understand the sentiment). Arch O. La 23:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Did I? Did I?
Hiya, Arch. As it seems, I seem to have pinpointed the problem. It's been told to everyone now that Rob had sockpuppets. Can you believe it? I can't say I was so surprised.

Seriously though, I can speak no less than that I saw it coming. I knew something like this was bound to happen. My only query is, why only 24 hours? For someone who sockpuppeted to rig a vote (and to create his own vanity article), he got the same punishment as a 3RR violation. In fact, he's had worse 3RR punishments than this.

Honestly, you and CTS have worked the hardest on this page, is there a process for naming official moderators for a single Talk page? If I hadn't already given you a Barnstar, I would give you another. (And in fact, CTS is due for one as well.) --Avery W. Krouse 05:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Aussi, for him to have been fully and immediately convicted of SP, the IP addresses used for each acct would have to be the exact same, meaning initiated from the same computer on the same internet connection. --Avery W. Krouse 05:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That might still be a friend or student. Whatever you decide to do, be sure to respect civil rights and due process. That's all I ask. Arch O. La 05:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Due process is one thing, and getting what is due is another. In fact, they are both what I'm trying to champion right now. If Rob is taken to ArbCom, those of us who believe he should leave will get to present our cases. Those who take a neutral stance, like you, can provide evidence as well. And those who are on his side, including he himself, get to present cases again. Go take a look at one of the cases at WP:ARBCOM. The process is very, very fair, and acts in due process. It gives him a chance to defend himself but also gives Wikipedia a chance to render a verdict and end the issue, whether it means to allow him to stay, or to vote him off the island.


 * Is it always like this on these pages? In the couple of months I've been around I've been involved in a few "heated" discussions but it's always been up front in the open and short lived - until the last couple of weeks. All these "socks", spurious accounts, edit wars and page protections mean I spend more time trying to work out what is going on than get edits done. Have I hit a bad time after a lull or is this normal? SOPHIA 00:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Dirty Socks?
Feel free to request an WP:RCU re: User:RTS and User:NPOV77. You might want to contact User:Jayjg on his talk page, letting him know who you are and that these disruptive users have appeared, resulting in page protection, and share your concerns. He's an excellent and very fair administrator with "checkuser" privileges. KHM03 00:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

= Vandalism virgin =

Wow my first user page vandalism. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

= Fair use images =

Fair use images (namely Image:StarWarsOpeningLogo.JPG) are not allowed on user pages per the WP:FAIR policy. I removed the image for you. I hope you understand. -- His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair (use) enough. Though without the pretty picture it does make that section look a little dull. Arch O. La 22:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * *Waves hand* You want to not use fair use images! -- His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My new NASA picture is public domain, so your Jedi mind tricks will not work on me. Arch O. LaTalk TCF  02:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Waves hand* Move along! -- His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

=Want to talk about Jesus?= Go ahead but be warned He has his own subpage.

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy
Please take a look at the Talk page (Talk:Timeline_of_unfulfilled_Christian_Prophecy) of this article. —Aiden 04:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed your interest in this article. I would like to encourage you to cast a vote for the alternative names that are currently being proposed. Thanks for your help on this matter --T-rex 04:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

WTF is Steven Levitt?
Your presence is requested at the Steven Levitt deletion discussion. Wikipedia needs to be streamlined, and we can't possibly document every godless crackpot who comes up with some inane "theory". By creating articles on people who are out of touch with American values, we only give them a platform to preach their otherwise non-notable message from. Thanks for your time. :)

Peace in Christ


 * Eh, when I clicked on the page it has already been archived. I don't know anything about Steven Levitt. I am a centrist so I believe that all views should be aired, but I also believe false views should be refuted if neccesary. Arch O. La 17:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I should move Freakonomics down to my Recommended Reading List? Arch O. LaTalk TCF  02:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Genesis
I like Peter Gabriel better, more cerebral.

Very funny re the location of the Gospels. The only book of the Bible I never read was Numbers -- I'd rather read a phone book. Wait, they might be the same thing.

Don't know about the Tree article, never read it. Jim62sch 23:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Christianity Knowledge Base
Hi,

I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. ((unsigned| Nsandwich}}


 * Which version of Christianity? I'd hate to get in a fight with Catholics and Baptists ;( Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalk TCF 04:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Archola, isn't Aquinas close to the name of a contributor on Wikipedia here? Their moving all the pages to nonsense locations, but its all saved in the history, so as soon as someone can come online who can do something about this we can just revert it all. Homestarmy 17:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well what are we gonna do about it, just wait for the admin to come home or what? I've started a debate on my talk page there if you'd care to help at all, he seems quite adament in trying to force me into an argument, but I don't have time to outline all the stuff he's asking for and like I said, it won't do anything. Does wikicities have an abuse report thing? Some super admin guy came by I think once.... Homestarmy 17:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sacramental Union article
As a fellow Lutheran I invite you to have a look at this new article. Your help and input would be greatly appreciated. drboisclair 20:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am glad, Arch, that you added something to this article. drboisclair 04:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Arch, the anonymous change to the Sacramental Union article was strongly in favor of the Real Presence, but his/her addition to the article was not NPOV. Notice that I will no longer say POV because POV is not necessarily bad. NonNeutralPointOfView is bad in my view. I think that this author was saying that the ELCA denied the Real Presence. BTW, I followed the link that you put on that article's talk page and was shown a "not available" page. Cheers. drboisclair 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Arch, I am with you on the relative conservatism/liberalism of the anonymous editor. I used to be ultra-conservative in my early years when we had the 70s split in the LCMS. My edits to this article rejecting the idea that sacramental union=consubstantiation is as conservative a position that anyone can come to: outside of the fact that it is true. I remember that Roman Catholics were told that the Lutheran position was consubstantiation. Then there was impanation too, which is an analogy to incarnation. In impanation the body and blood of Christ becomes bread in the same way as the "Word was made flesh." The Roman Catholics rightly brand that as heresy in the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Of course, that is my POV, but POV is not bad as long as it is not NNPOV! drboisclair 14:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Archola, I just got back from a several day vacation, and after reading all that stuff from him on CTSW's talk page, is there some big problem or something with this person I should know about? Homestarmy 16:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That is interesting that your pastor described your position as "consubstantiation," and to tell you the truth that idea is really close to the Lutheran position. From my understanding it is connected with this "local presence": having the body and blood present like regular food. It is "really" present and "physically" present to be eaten and drunk. Our LCMS 1943 expanded catechism states that it is "sacramentally" present. We reject a "spiritual presence" as the Reformed churches understand that present because they reject that we really eat and drink Christ's body and blood. Another way of describing it is that his body and blood are "supernaturally" present. The point is that everyone who eats and drinks the sacramental bread and wine eats and drinks in, with, and under the forms of them, the body and blood of Christ. Your pastor was 100% right when he said as you pointed out: "How this happens, we were told, was not revealed by God, and was thus a divine mystery beyond human understanding." That is why we do not say "consubstantiation" because that doctrine of William of Occam says too much. I think, though, that you were taught your catechism well. drboisclair 17:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to Grigory's post on my talk page, Arch. drboisclair 22:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Arch Grigory, please see my modification of the final paragraph re: the relationship of Consubstantiation to Sacramental Union. I think that I have it now.drboisclair 22:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Arch, more research needs to be done. I am interested, so I will do it. I think you have put your finger on the truth when you said that it was "broad": it is the position of William of Okham I believe. You don't like too much speculation, so it wouldn't be to your liking. It would not be to Luther's liking either. drboisclair 01:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

And I Thought I was Conservative
WELS? I would never have thought it. I'm even more impressed with your consensus building skills! --CTSWyneken 21:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Grace Lutheran is Wisconsin Synod, but it's also the closest congregation. My own views are somewhere between the old ALC and the LCMS, which I guess would draw me to the AALC if there was a congregation nearby. I try to explain this on my user page. At the moment I am merely Lutheran, confused by sectarian differences. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 22:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If I can help you work these issues out off-wiki, feel free to email me. I do have a stole! ;-) --CTSWyneken 00:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on cat Talk:Martin Luther
I know you love to vote as an editor, so would you like to come vote on the category at the end of the Luther talk page. This will settle things once and for all. Drboisclair 01:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hardly love. On Talk:Jesus I learned that filivoting (filibustering disguised as voting) is a hypersphere of Hell of transfinite dimensions. Things aren't much better at Talk:Christianity, as a certain Orwellian Website Which Shall Remain Nameless has demonstrated. I choose not to throw myself into another conflict (I just know as a Lutheran they'll say I'm hopelessly biased anyway). I will say that certain editors involved at Talk:Wikipedia have mistaken CTSWyneken's RfA for an RfC. I seek less contentious pages for the time being. Grigory DeepdelverTalk 17:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

=Recommended Reading=

Saul vs. Paul
Have you read Daniel Boyarin's A Radical Jew? Boyarin is a professor of TYalmud I think at Berkeley, and the book is on Paul in the Jewish/Hellenic context. If you are interested in the split between Jews and christians, I think you would find this a very thoughtful and interesting book. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I read the first three pages on Google Books. Enough that I'm interested. Arch O. LaTalk TCF  02:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Boyarin is brilliant, and he is a serious scholar, but his book is making an argument and is therefore arguable. If you want something on topic that is more careful (conservative) scholarship, I highly recommend chapter six of Shaye Cohen's The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society) (University of California Press), which is entitled "Judaizing" or something like that. Cohen scrutinizes all of the primary sources available and draws whatever conclusions he thinks are justified, and makes it clear when the sources prevent one from arriving at a definitive conclusion. I think you will find it very interesting and useful. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll have to look into it. Arch O. LaTalk TCF  02:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A pretty good book
Ever read King Jesus by Robert Graves? It's quite fascinating. Jim62sch 17:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to put your mind at ease, Rainbowpainter is not a sock-puppet, nor a meat-puppet. Jim62sch 19:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Addendum: I finally know what the heck you were talking about -- one of my alleged friends put that there.  If you get a chance, contact me on e-mail (from my user page).  Jim62sch 21:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The e-mail what???? Obviously I missed something. Jim62sch 12:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I fixed it, you can e-mail now. Jim62sch 12:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Consistent Life Ethic
Glad you found the link. I am anti-war (though I'm supremely annoyed at the American leftist pacifist movement, which shows little intellectual depth, IMHO), and don't believe there is such a thing as "just war" (I'm with the mennonites on this). You may want to check out Hauerwas' Resident Aliens and/or Yoder's Politics of Jesus as food for thought. Peace...KHM03 01:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll add them to the list...might take me a while to get to them. Arch O. LaTalk TCF 03:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

An Actual List

 * Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew.
 * Cohen, Shaye. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society)
 * Graves, Robert. King Jesus
 * Hauerwas, Stanley and William H. Willimon. Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony
 * Hayes, Judith. The Happy Heretic
 * Levitt, Steven. Freakonomics
 * Yoder, John Howard. Politics of Jesus

= Nurr = Nice internet detective work, ace. You'll well on your way to using basic internet utilities! 68.188.139.55

= Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot =

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, SuggestBot. Now, let me add one: Viral Eukaryogenesis needs attention from an expert in cellular or molecular evolution. Arch O. LaTalk TCF 11:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)