User talk:C.Logan/Archive 1

Welcome C.Logan
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk) 23:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Nontrinitarian links
I understand your purpose in re-adding the links; however, let me explain my reasoning beyond the confines of the edit summary box.

I believe it's unnecessary to include said links on both pages. Please feel free to share your thoughts with me, preferably on my talk page.--C.Logan 20:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there is already an article on the Nontrinitarian viewpoint, it isn't necessary to devote considerable resources to this page. That's redundant, and also echoes the fact that some Nontrinitarians have been suggesting adding more arguments against the Trinity to this article.Why? A link to Nontrinitarian, and a summary that a minority disagree with the Trinitarian view is all that's necessary to say on the Trinity page.
 * Additionally, it's unusual that this article had more Nontrinitarian links than Trinitarian ones... and also that this article had more Nontrinitarian links than the Nontrinitarian article (that is, until I moved the links from Trinity to Nontrinitarian.
 * You say that both sides are needed to show balance, however, there is already a Nontrinitarian article to balance the viewpoint, and a link from Trinity to that page.Once again, it is redundant to devote more than a paragraph or two of space in the Trinity article to nontrinitarian views.


 * I view the two articles as a fork that really is not appropriate. However, in that there are two articles and editors are resistent to have a single artile given the length of each, it does make sense that the topics of both articles be the major respective focus. That does not mean however a a reader is getting a balanced article because they can seek out the other article. I think that is strongly against WIKI policy. Both articles should focus on their topic and give space, references, and links that support the opposing theology. We don't need to "cover up" the other side and neither position is harmed by a firm acknowledgement of opposing ideas. I do not wish to offend, but I really think this borders on censorship. We produce better articles when each articles stands on its own as balanced, if not we are only writing propaganda. Does this make sense to you? --Storm Rider (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Censorship would be more of an issue if I were to have completely deleted this links from Wikiexistence... however, I just relocated them to their proper position within Wiki: in the article to which they lend support. I didn't delete the Nontrinitarian views section, which I believe is a sufficient bit of information regarding a dissenting viewpoint that has it's own page on which it's information can be relayed. Compare the Christianity article. It's fully apparent that there are about 4 billion or so people who don't agree with Christianity to varying degrees. The 2 articles, Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of the Bible, are briefly explained, and links are provided. However, the external links at the bottom of the page are solely Christian resources, not critical sites. Obviously, it would be very questionable to place the Islamic "Answering Christianity" link found on the Crit. of Christianity page in the links section of the Christianity page. Because the links that you support are polemical in nature, it would be better suited for the Nontrinitarian page, where such arguments are essential to the subject. If the Nontrin. article were short enough to warrant inclusion, than I would have no problem combining the articles and links.


 * If someone is curious of something, they'll seek it out. I doubt that anyone who would be interested in learning Nontrinitarian reasoning would miss the little blue link under the section heading.
 * I don't see it as censorship when a link to a 47kb page of dissenting views is presented with description in the middle of the article.--C.Logan 22:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't get too caught up in the semantics. The main point is the generally we do not allow forks on Wikipedia. If you want to balance the links do so (i.e. equalize the numbers of links so that one does not overshadow the other), but don't delete all of the links that are critical of a topic. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article on Christianity has a small referral section devoted to Criticism of Christianity. Yet, there are no external links which deal in direct criticism of the topic. You'll find those at the Criticism of Christianity page, itself.
 * Similarly, the Christianity article includes sections both regarding the Trinity and Nontrinitarianism. However, there are (again) no external links in direct reference to either of those topics. Those links can be found at their respective topic pages. Nor are there any links which are specifically concerning Criticism of the Bible, because (again) those links are found at that particular page. This is why Answering-Islam.org will never be seen amongst the external links of the Islam article. It is a dissenting view, yes, and it will bring up good points of argument, but the Islam page is a page which focuses primarily on simple facts, rather than arguments. The Criticism of Islam page serves that purpose, and so you will find the aforementioned site linked there (that is, if Muslim readers cease with the constant deletion of information from the Criticism page).
 * While it can be argued that Nontrinitarianism is not the same as a Criticism article, they are in essence the same. Nontrinitarianism is not so much a new belief system as it is a reformation of an old one, achieved by arguing away doctrines which are seen by the group as false (with the exception of Mormonism, as that's a more complicated case). Nontrinitarian sites are similarly much more often resources for polemics against orthodox Christian doctrines than they are community sites or general resources. The tone of the Nontrinitarianism article is nearly the same as that of an article focused on direct criticism, and it offers many thought-provoking points to the reader. As it is, I had made an attempt to improve both articles by curtailing what was out of place in one, and what was perfectly appropriate and supportive to another.--C.Logan 09:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam
I'm probably not the best person to offer judgment about whether that person has a valid point our not - Islam and it's critics isn't one of my areas of academic or personal study. I would suggest taking this to the Religions WikiProject. People there would probably be in a better position to offer their opinions. Natalie 16:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * People here might be able to answer questions for you. Arrow740 06:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism
I don't find it to be better than Buddhism in any way. I think it is the most attractive theistic religion. www.sikhiwiki.org is a good place to learn about Sikhism. Sikhism stresses improving the self and society through involvement in society. The ideal is the householder mystic. The religion focuses on devotion to God, merging of the soul into union with God, and the acquisition of divine virtues, with the goal of that being a creative force for good in society following the model of God. There is no us vs. them mentality as found in the other monotheist religions, and there is reincarnation (i.e., God gives his children as many chances as necessary to attain the goal) instead of eternal heaven or hell. If you have any other questions feel free to ask. By the way, it's been good to have you on board policing Islam-related articles. Arrow740 20:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

St. Paul
Thank you for policing this article Roger Arguile 21:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Al-Razi
Good job on cleaning up the "on religion" section in the al-Razi article. I may add some more on his religious view later. selfworm _ _ ( Talk ·  Contribs ) _ 15:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, it just seems to me that there's a lot of inaction in this world so I personally feel if you say something, you should go ahead and do it. Just wanted to make sure it gets done, eh? Anyway no hard feelings. Imasleepviking 18:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Armyrifle
Yeah, I changed my previous belief. Armyrifle 22:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

lol, conveniantly, I typed my reasons for conversion just a couple of hours ago. I have it saved, so I can copy and paste it. I may need your email, though... Armyrifle 22:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam: Long sections
I disagree with your recent edits to Criticism of Islam, further lengthening the Muhammad and Qur'an sections which I was trying to shorten (having greatly expanded them). I have therefore opened a discussion on the appropriate length of these two sections on the talk page. If you wish, please feel free to read my comments and respond on the talk page. Regards, N-edits 00:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop
This user is not using the Talk page themselves and asking YOU to use the talk page. I'm suspecting he's a sockpuppet of some other user but thats besides the point. He's wrong, simply. Go to his talk page, work with the other users who are also having issues with him. I reverted his change for now. Be persistent on users like this. This is plain vandalism. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * you could also try emailing bob dylan on his website and asking him to clarify his status. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually doubt that would work. Personal contributions are not generally acceptable, as it's really hard to verify that the person who sent the message is the person in question. If Bob were to set up an account as himself, though, I'm sure such a comment would be welcome on the articles talk page, and he could use whichever faith-related userbox(es) he wanted on his own userpage which we could link to. Anyone out there know how to actually reach the big guy himself? John Carter 01:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh. While that would be an interesting development, I'd hope we can focus on the things we have in front of us. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, his conversion is referenced by 12 or so sources, and his baptism is mentioned by 3, two of which are widely-known published sources (i.e. books).


 * I can't see how our current argument is unsound. The purpose of the list is to list conversions. If you asked someone any famous people he knew of who had converted to Christianity, he might say Bob Dylan, and he would be correct. Bob did convert to Christianity. He is a notable convert. The list is called "List of notable converts to Christianity", not "List of notable converts to Christianity who remain Christian". It's curious that Bus stop assumes the latter.--C.Logan 01:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dylan, evidence of conversion
Thanks for your stamina in typing out most of Howard Sounes's book. I've been try to provide the evidence, which is neither sketchy nor ambiguous, ever since [] using Howard Sounes; Clinton Heylin, “Bob Dylan: Behind the Shades Take Two”, Viking, 2000,ISBN 0670885061; Michael Gray, "The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia", Continuum, 2006, ISBN 0826469337; and Heylin's collection of sermons “Saved! The Gospel Speeches of Bob Dylan” ed. Clinton Heylin, Hanuman Books, New York, 1990, ISBN 0-938715-38-1. best wishes Mick gold 05:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I am in possession of all these books and many more, I have far too many books on Dylan. I was trying to use the quotes and the evidence gleaned from them selectively, whereas in your contributions you've gone in for a sort of "Rolling Thunder" mode of referencing. I hope it's effective and this "debate" is soon resolved on the principles of NPOV and verifiability. Mick gold 06:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm in Austria for a week working on a film project. It's difficult for me to reach the internet, so I'm afraid I cannot contribute for the next few days. Good luck & best wishes Mick gold 20:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Trying to reason wtih the mad-hatter
Suggestion: Don't waste any more of your time knocking your head against the wall, the wall that is Bus Stop. Until he provides real documentation, we have no need of indulging him with our time, there is no use wasting any more of our energies trying to convince him why Wiki requires documentation. He is apparently on some sort of a religious kick, trying to defend what he believes to be his native religion at the expense of even logic itself. Logic demands documentation, not opinion. There's no point in trying to reason with the mad hatter, it will only make you mad.

By the way, thanks for letting me know about my excessive re-edits. I'm trying to work on that.

-Scott P. 13:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Appearance of disagreement
Sir, I consider your contributions to the List of converts and your willingness and ability to take part in discussion with a person who is clearly at least to me acting in at least ignorance and possibly even bad faith to be an excellent statement on your character and personality. As the page is currently constructed, it seems to me that you may have come to the conclusion that I have a substantial disagreement with you. To the best of my knowledge, I do not. I have seen from your own contributions that you are a conscientious and reasonable contributor, three words which could arguably not be used regarding at least one other party in the discussion. If you have gotten the impression that I do have any sort of reservations to you or your work, I would like to let you know that to the best of my knowledge I do not, and in fact have a good deal of respect for your work. Thank you for your real contributions to date (acknowledging the "contributions" of some other parties are at best only nominally such), and I sincerely hope that you will not allow the current situation to prove to be an impediment to your continuing to be a valuable contributor to wikipedia. John Carter 15:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bob Dylan
The List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians, which lists Dylan, cites these two specific works as their sources for his inclusion in that list: &. At this point, however, I'm not sure it's really the best idea to call the attention of, ahem, a certain person, to that list. Good work. :) John Carter 00:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy quote was meant as support/summary, not disagreement. I apologize for the misunderstanding. — Demong talk 20:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, no problem. I wasn't sure if you caught my intentions in arguing about 'factuality'. --C.Logan 20:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/List of notable converts to Christianity, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
 * The request for mediation has been rejected on the basis of Bus stop's refusal to accept mediation. Please indicate at the Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity section what you think the next step in this process should be. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 16:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
Hi C.Logan I'm back home. You asked for my input into List of notable converts to Christianity. To be honest, I don't feel totally comfortable with this List or some of the issues it raises. I feel very committed to working on the Bob Dylan entry, trying to ensure it's well written and well sourced. As I said, I appreciate the extraordinary effort you put into typing very long extracts from Sounes, Heylin, and Williamson onto Wikipedia. (It shouldn't be necessary to re-type these kinds of secondary sources, should it? If something has been published in a WP:RS that should suffice, one would think.) I feel slightly uneasy about the black & white nature of reducing religious beliefs to something as one dimensional as a List. Obviously, I think your sources are valid and I agree with most of your arguments. But I don't want to jump into debate currently raging on. Best wishes Mick gold 13:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 16:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Request for arbitration
A request for arbitration involving yourself has recently been filed. Please feel free to go to Requests for arbitration and make any statement you believe appropriate. Thank you. John Carter 14:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Project proposal
We don't need any specific approval to go ahead with a separate project. However, if we do try to become a work group of the Religion project, it would probably be a good idea to get their OK first. It looks to me like at least one existing member of that project has joined because of the note on that page, so I think we should hear something fairly soon. Regarding the comments by Cleo, I believe that the number of attacks from that side are probably going to continue indefinitely, certainly from Cleo, who seems to think that repeating what has already been said in other popular media makes us a potential victim of a lawsuit. Personally, I would love to see some evidence to support that accusation, but I don't think that party will ever deign to provide substantial support for any comment s/he makes. John Carter 15:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up on EA Request.
Hello,

A few weeks ago, you requested editor assistance per an issue relating to the List of notable converts to Christianity article. There have been a few responses, and I would like to know where the situation stands at the moment.

Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Cheers, --Aarktica 20:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

HABIBZ
C. Logan, I've placed a report here:.

Your input is appreciated. --ProtectWomen 21:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Bus Stop
I've thought about ducking out of the discussion regarding Bus stop. The man obviously has problems. I will possibly file a report. I read his talk page and noticed how he pulled the race card and called someone an anti-semite for referring to him as a "mad hatter". At the risk of sounding anti-semitic myself (and that risk is not intended, but I can see how a certain editor might try to construe it that way), I've been in several such arguments with Orthodox Jews and so I am familiar with the logic -- if you disagree with some of them, you're a racist (not always, but many times). I have no problem with any race, but the belief that he has that he can force Jewish ideas and protocol on to Wikipedia is revolting, in my opinion. The man will not compromise and obviously ignores Wikipedia rules regarding consensus. I think its high time he has a report filed against him. Drumpler 13:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Trinity article
I believe your treatment of Trinity article and deleting of my entries is a violation of a founding principle of wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, I hope we can resolve this without going into mediation. I have posted also in the discussion page, I will be going to mediation if we can't find a solution ourselves. I do not agree with a one sided article with only a single link at end to disent, this does not seem like normal wikipedia practice.David edmonton 14:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please sign your comments, and read WP:CON, WP:OR, and the text within the parentheses in the third sentence of WP:NPOV. The article needs sources as it is, and the addition of minority views (especially without sources) is in contrast to WP:UNDUE. Your statements have a far more appropriate place on the Nontrinitarian page, where minority views are discussed in detail. --C.Logan 18:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If I miss a citation for one small piece of evidence, you can delete that but not the stuff that has propper citation on the undue basis. I ask for informal/non binding mediation and your friend who is invited by you and not an unbiased mediator was clearly told by the heading not to delete the mediation request until it is settled.  Carl Sagan, the baloney detector test, (many links on internet, here is one) http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html, "suppressed evidence or half truths", to include scriptures from john that supposedly support trinity but delete every one that seems to oppose despite just as good of citations would seem to violate NPOV.  It would be like deleting any quote on a discussion of Lord of the Rings that didn't agree with a thesis that Samwise was gay.  I will ask for mediation if we can't resolve this internally.
 * One option is we can split off an article or two on scriptures, just leaving a stub in the main trinity article but it should be balanced to allow ALL scriptures that directly impact the trinity. It may only include stubs of each scripture from a single translation with a link to a full balanced discussion of each scripture.  If it isn't right for JW or whoever group to only show one side of scriptures or quotes then it isn't right for you eitherDavid edmonton 14:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I am working on some material on the subject. The Anglican POV on the subject is identical to the Roman Catholic in all but a few respects.

While the Church of England did indeed split with Rome at the time of the Reformation, it is not a "Protestant Church". See - Via media.

Not jockying for special recongnition, but the idea of Anglicans as Protestants is a dated and incorrect concept. Thoughts?
 * No offense taken. I'll hold off and look into the standard ussage here on WP. WHen I have a case, I'll present here.

SECisek 00:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Saints articles
Actually, the production isn't anywhere near as impressive as it looks. All I'm doing is trying to ensure that all the saints get included. The Holweck book I've been using is the most comprehensive listing I've found, even if all the individual entries tend to be really short. But, if you were aware of any similar books or other works easily accessible to you which might have more info on some of the stub subjects, or wanted to create any of the missing stubs yourself, I would be profoundly grateful. John Carter 22:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing or altering other people's comments
For the third time now comments of mine on this talk page have been removed, moved or altered by editors on the other side of this dispute. I believe I've made it very clear above that I do mind people altering my remarks. I consider it very disrespectful and I would appreciate it if this sort of behavior would stop. Cleo123 08:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleo, your vote, which essentially summarizes the argument you have already presented in the section in which you had placed it, belongs in the "Dylan Should Not Be Included" section. It makes little sense to vote if you're not going to place the vote in the proper section; additionally, I find it unusual that when I moved your misplaced vote (which doesn't hold any necessary place in the above position) with a cautionary note about my reasons, you cry: vandalism. There's a difference between 'moving a comment to be an ass', and 'moving a comment because it belongs in another section'. I can assure you that I was not trying to piss you off; rather I was setting things in proper order. --C.Logan 08:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I placed my comment where I placed it quite deliberately. I did not want my remarks to be seperated from each other. I do not see any place where the mediator sets forth the format you describe. Had you asked me, rather than simply moving and rewriting my comment, I would have gladly explained myself. It's nice to hear that you "are not trying to piss me off". An appology would be more effective in convincing me, rather than the criticism you have offered above.Cleo123 08:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well of course I apologize for moving your comment. I noted that I had moved it with a clear explanation as to why, so I would very much appreciate it if you weren't so quick to openly accuse me of 'vandalizing' it, as I was acting in good faith.
 * It would seem that the creation of the headings entitled Dylan should be included, Dylan should not be included and Dylan isn't the problem makes the format of the mediation discussion clear: A vote of "agreement" under the heading which describes the editor's opinion. By this logic, "disagreeing" to Dylan should be included is the same as "agreeing" to Dylan should not be included- save that it can be a little more confusing to tally, and it lumps all the discussion into one giant section, while there remains a sub-section which has not received any support (and one in which I felt your vote properly belonged). Therefore, I believe we should feel free to comment in all the sub-sections, but we should vote (in agreement) only under the headings which reflect our argument/stance. --C.Logan 08:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're fine. :) It's just happened a lot and I finally said something about it. All's well. Drumpler 09:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

List of notable converts to Islam
Since you have been editing this article for some time, may I request that you drop off a comment here. According to User:Prester John, I have breached 3rr at the article List of notable converts to Islam. I'm not asking you to agree with either me or Prester John, but comment on how you see the situation.Bless sins 23:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The above will also explain my somehwat confusing self-revert. I was attempting to self-revert as per WP:3rr.Bless sins 23:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for posting.

Can you please give a final word on Talk:List_of_notable_converts_to_Islam.Bless sins 02:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi! I see you've been active in helping to improve this specific page so I thought i'd post my feedback here. As you can see, the issue has been edited back and forth a few times tonight and it was pointed out to me that it's best to talk things out rather than editing back and forth for reference, the page Resolving disputes helped me learn a lot).  My main issue with the comment was that it didn't seem necessary to highlight that in his summary.  It is true that he has been accused of such a link; my reasoning was that using that in his summary on the page, which is basically summarizing his notability, didn't seem very fair.  He is actually controversial for a number of reasons, that being one of them.  While it is more serious than the others, I didn't think it need to be singled out above any other issue people have taken with him, especially considering that the accusation of terrorism gives a very negative impression, while an encyclopedia should give a more neutral picture.  You and I both know that nobody editing here intends to give it a negative slant...but we also know how readers will take it.  Seemed like a fairly big deal considering it's a charge that is disputed anyway.  Let me know what you think, and hopefully we can all come to a compromise on this. MezzoMezzo 06:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Presenting the truth is neutral. Arrow740 06:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Arrow740, though i'm not sure exactly the point you're trying to make. C.Logan, i'm still eager to hear your feedback. MezzoMezzo 00:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Mezzo, sorry I didn't reply sooner. The issue of the descriptions is a complicated one. I'm willing to compromise, though other editors are less agreeable. If you have a description which you wish to dispute/change, bring it up on the talk page, and I'll work out a suitable phrasing. The general point here is that we don't want to present harsh facts, but we most certainly do not want to whitewash them, either. Situations such as Yvonne Ridley's (for example) must be mentioned in full- the removal of the 'kidnapping' element in her conversion strikes me as petty censorship. It should be noted that I agree with Arrow above- truth is truth; if an individual is a terrorist, then we should not be removing that from his description. I'm not going to make judgments about you, but it's certain that not every editor involved on that page is functioning with an NPOV attitude. So, if you have an issue, address me on the talk page there and I'll give you my input, and hopefully the rest of the editors will come around to compromise as well.--C.Logan 06:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, and I hav posted on the articles talk page. Thanks for the advice! MezzoMezzo 14:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox?
I was wondering if this was orthodox? You directly responded to the portion that Bus stop removed from his initial post. I can understand editing to clarify, but this seems like editing to remove something that he wants to hide. I do not want to judge the man and his intentions may be pure, but just keep a keen eye. Drumpler 07:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you notice Cleo's recent moving around of quotations in order to get the "best slot" and if so, how do you feel about it? I know how this technique can be used to game the system and personally, I think its unprofessional. Drumpler 09:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see it, but I'm a bit more concerned about her response to my last comment. The one which notifies me that I should be ashamed for advising her not to use Jesus as an argumentative tool. Now, appealing to Jesus is not a bad thing per se when the general presentation is pure, but when one does so to emphasize that one side is wrong, and to characterize a user like Bus stop as a saint, it's a little offensive. Notice:
 * "Do they really think that Jesus would condone their behavior in this matter? Do they think that Jesus wants them to misrepresent facts and attack others who have the fortitude and spiritual strength to stand up to them?"
 * Cleo is starting this presentation with her single perspective, and then attaching the name of Jesus to urge people to feel guilty about offenses which are only truly committed within Cleo's own interpretation of events.--C.Logan 10:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree. Perhaps it borders on one of the worse personal attacks conceivable -- someone's religious salvation is in stake unless they edit the article a specific way. She could've just simply said "Go to hell" and be done with it. ;) Drumpler 11:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
I thought that I had just forgot to save the page. Krummy2 11:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll at List of notable converts to Christianity
Hello C.Logan. I noticed that you have not cast a vote to break the tie in the latest attempt to reach consensus at List of notable converts to Christianity. I encourage you to do so here. Thank you. Nick Graves 19:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Converts
Note Bus Stop brought up the anti semitic stuff up again. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom
I have submitted a report on User:Bus stop on the ArbCom page here. As an individual who was involved in this debate, your participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Drumpler 17:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If this doesn't work
I think that the arbitrator might be referring to WP:AN/I, WP:CN, and/or WP:VP. I think the first is available if either of the problematic editors makes a change to the article page, and the second might be available then as well. The latter would probably be the place to go if we wanted to get a community decision on how to format the page and/or determine selection criteria. There are probably a few others as well. If it does fail the request, I'm figuring to ask Isotope about any other options he can think of then. John Carter 21:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi C. Logan. I've posted to the Community Sanction Noticeboard here concerning Bus stop. Your comments would be most welcome, as well as help finding diffs to back up what I say there. There are so many to sift through that it is a daunting task to find them all. Thank you. Nick Graves 03:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Bus stop (2)
I think for now it'd just be wise to ignore Bus stop's page. It doesn't really do any good for anyone, as he is blocked from disruptive editing, and it might just continue to entrench him in his belief that his actions are justifiable. Drumpler 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, its indeed very amusing, but just not productive. I do make a point to visit the page at least once daily. :P Drumpler 04:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User page
Hey Logan, thanks for reverting the work of the other nutjob around here ;) Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. The point I am trying to make may not seem to be a serious one; some background may help.

This article has always been subject to a deal of dogmatic intervention. Sometimes the locusts are non-believers, sometimes fundamentalists, and so on. Its history has been marked by this. I attempted to revise it some time ago to make it s straightforward undogmatic article which, however, notices the difficulties. But WP has moved on. Discussions with the teams which assess good articles indicates that there is agreement amongst them that articles which are written by non-specialists must be well sourced (See Grover Cleveland)and be pretty objective. Pious paraphrases, apart from lengthening the article - we could include half of the Acts of the Apostles on this basis - are useless. In this particular case, we have to cope with the difficult fact that the Paul of Acts makes a Nazirite vow whereas the Paul of Galatians regards the whole thing as reprehensible and a denial of the revelation in Christ. Now, I may have my own views as to a) psychology of Paul and b) the reliability of Acts, but I cannot assert them, rightly, because of WP policies. Instead, I must avoid piety and present a precis of Acts as dispassionately as possible. If I were widely enough read I might find some discussion of this which I could insert. My professional life restricts this, but I notice that there are, on the whole, no takers amongst the widely read.

Incidentally, I wrote most of the section on Paul and Jesus with the intention of providing a jargon free description followed by references to the scholarly debate. It could properly be argued that this is OR. My reason for doing it was to assist, not editors, but those much neglected and voiceless people, the readers of the article. What the article needs is a widely read person to provide a ll-sourced precis of the biography and teaching, but even this will probably not prevent well intentioned but not very knowledgeable and somewhat dogmatic contributors like WC.

This may not help. If so, please reply. Roger Arguile 10:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have a moment...
...could you cast an eye over criticism of religion. I've tried to reorganise and re-write it in a neutral, well referenced manner, and while there's still a few things I'd like to do with it, I think it could use a fresh pair of eyes, particularly those of a theist. ornis 11:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers, it's just one of those topics it's basically impossible for one person to be neutral about. ornis 12:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul
You may have had a chance to look at the recent frisson. I am ducking out. I have deleted P from my watch list. The general tenor is against me. I happen to think that WC is OTT and offensive as well as being ignorant. But I have no business arguing against the consensus and have better things to do with me time. I may red a few books on St. Paul. Thanks for your modeeration. Roger Arguile 13:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Peniel Revival
I noticed your removal of the cat from Second Coming along the way, but I first spotted its addition to several other articles. Apfaq seems to have done all this today, so it wasn't too hard to go through his contribs page and yank it from articles where it plainly didn't belong. I left it in other places though, where it didn't seem too out of place pending its deletion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Logan, please comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peniel_Revival_Ministries_Inc Thank You --Apfaq

Can anyone help edit this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peniel_Revival_Ministries_Inc Please offer feedback, help, tips and anything eles needed to address any concerns of notability of this article. Since this article is a stub, is it ok as it is?? --Apfaq

Re:Muslim inventions
Sadly, we'll probably have to go through the excruciating process of discussing every "invention" to prove that jumping from a tower is not exactly inventing a parachute. Beit Or 21:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

hello
hi C. Logan. with regards to the disputed material on Criticism of Islam, i feel that Sperry isn't in a position to make attributions to, or speak for, the Pentagon (especially when these apparently aren't independently verifiable). similarly, we don't accept Alex Jones attributing unpublished statements to the Pentagon or U.S officials. we've been discussing it here, and the need for better sourcing has been highlighted by editors if it is to be used on other articles like Criticism of Islam. i find comments about my motives a little unfair, i don't particularly care about the assertion made in the paragraph; my prime concern is that content itself is cited to reliable sources and neutrally presented. regards,  ITAQALLAH   17:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks for your reply. i'll certainly have a think about what you wrote. my own understanding is that a source that's not inherently reliable in its field (journalism, academia, etc.) isn't a resource that should be used to make claims about a reputed third party, especially if it's a highly significant claim (regardless of whether it's true or false). i believe that's not the kind of thing we're obliged to relate. i believe the reputation of the source is paramount: of what significance is a claim made solely by an unreliable source? if we had a mainstream media outlet making this kind of essentially unverifiable claim, that would be something different. apologies if i came across as a bit brusque, by the way.  ITAQALLAH   22:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

re: "that was way too easy"
Heh, I guess after months of being subjected to a certain editor who seems governed by neither policies nor rationality nor reason, we're now all shocked when witnessing people with opposing POVs amicably build consensus. Cheers. Tendancer 01:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Random smile


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

--Hornet35 13:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

E-mail
You may wish to enable your e-mail feature; some things are better communicated off wiki.-- Sef rin gle Talk 01:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Trinity Compliment
Thanks for taking the time to write me about adding your suggestion. That's very nice of you, and I appreciate it. The paragraph needs a citation. I've search for key phrases via Google but was unable to find anything close. If you would add a reference, that would be very helpful. Thanks again! --Afaprof01 22:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Muhammad
I responded to your question here: Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad.Bless sins 21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I didn't realize I'd erased that paragraph. I wrote about four replies to the troll before posting one, I didn't mean to delete another editor's reply. ThuranX 22:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'd realized that it was a simple mistake. Besides, after your admonishment of FlaviaR for bisecting comments, I'd strongly doubt that you would intentionally delete another user's comment.--C.Logan 22:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I wouldn't. I onlyrarely do any such thing, mostly to remove obvious trolling and race-baiting type stuff. I notice she didn't bother to listen though, and has again bisected commentaries by others. ThuranX 22:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

List of converts to Islam
Response to this.

I cite the talk page because it is there I have provided my evidence that the conversion was not real. Also, some users have opposed me, but no one seems to have responded to the sources I brought forth (esp. the professor who rejected the conversion is invalid). People have gotten into the habit of simply reverting my edits or simply opposing me, without giving consideration to my arguments.

I find it a bit strange that you would revert me, even though you don't disagree with me.Bless sins 02:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I had assumed that you were citing the talk page for any sort of "consensus" on the matter. Even so, it still doesn't seem utterly convincing in-and-of itself that the sources you provided would give sufficient cause to flout consensus. I can assure you that I've been involved with many edit wars where sources were considered sufficient, but in reality were either misinterpreted or were neglectful of corroborating evidence through other sources. That being said, I think we should have a serious discussion on the matter. I'm fairly certain that you know how to set up a simple "voting"-type procedure, and this would be a definite and focused manner in which you can settle the dispute over the listing, and the validity of the sources.


 * I think that the main problem is that several people are betting the inclusion of said individuals on different aspects of the incident. For instance, some say "they were forced, so it wasn't real", to which many respond "that's the point of a forced conversion section" (which I feel every 'converts' article should have, by the way). There's a few points on which people base the inclusion.


 * I think the general dividing point against you is that many editors, in reality, agree with you that the conversion was "not real". But again, how many forced conversions really are? Individuals like Horapollo remained in their forced religion, but possibly insincerely. So what truly separates these "hidden practitioners" from individuals who later publicly reverted?


 * It seems more of a qualitative judgment which may complicate the issue than anything. It's very difficult to judge "conversion" on a qualitative basis, especially in a Wikipedia scenario, so I think that's why most individuals seem to consider the act of one forcing another to convert to be sufficient enough for inclusion. It may very well be that individuals seem to be ignoring your points because you're not quite hitting on what they're arguing about.


 * To note, I neither agree nor disagree: I haven't formed any strong opinion on the matter. I wanted to note that as I was reverting you because of the consensus of the other users on the page. Conceding or following consensus doesn't necessarily mean that one agrees, they just understand the consensus concept. I hope you understand, now, what I'd meant in my edit summary.


 * As a side note, I think that many users may simply oppose you because they feel that you're pushing an agenda. I have no real opinion on you in that respect, but I have seen that you've made positive contributions in places, regardless of your motivations in doing so. Additionally, articles like the List of notable converts to Islam suffer from POV vandalism and removals more often than most articles, and so the watchmen on those articles tend to be wary of anything that pushes a pro-Islamic perspective. It's an uphill battle, I think, for positive contributions, but the caution is necessary to prevent actual POV-pushing from occurring. At least, that's how I see the ongoing atmosphere on the article.--C.Logan 03:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to this later on. As there is no edit war, I don't think the response is urgent.Bless sins 01:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to a "voting" type procedure. I can assure that most users will come by and drop their vote, without a single word of justification.

Forced conversion is dangerous territory to walk in. I agree that it is indeed difficult ot judge the quality of conversions by wikipedians. But what reliable sources and the converts themselves say is another matter.

If indiviudals are ignoring me because I'm "not quite hitting on what they're arguing about", then they haven't mafde their arguments clear.

Also, I think the whole "motivations" issue should stay out of this. None of us are mind readers, and so none can claim to knwo what the other is thinking. As a Christian, I assume you believe that only God is All-Knowing, not us human biengs. To claim to "know" a person's intentions is, in my opinion, absurd.

Now back to thier conversion. Here are my arguments:
 * The converts themselves reject thier conversion. Note they don't apostasize, but say thier covnersion was never real.
 * A reliable source, Professor Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi, also says that the two never converted.
 * Finally, if we do choose to list them as forced converts, it immediately follows that they are now Muslims. Unless, there are sources that say they reverted from Islam, and converted to another religion, we are forced to accept the above conclusion. Are you and other ready to concede that?Bless sins 18:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. You can respond here or on my talk page.Bless sins 00:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright then; there are a few problems with the above. The first point and third points are largely dependent on the agreed format of the list, which seems rather unclear at times. As it is, the first point essentially goes hand-in-hand with the concept of "forced conversion", so I don't see how it is an argument in-and-of-itself. I'm unsure of what relevance the Professor's opinion has here. Can you explain? The third point is most disagreeable. As far as things go, we can't make such a claim by inference.


 * We don't know what their current religious preference is, so essentially, all that we can report by WP policy is the facts surrounding the event itself. Don't get me started on the last time someone decided to argue with guesswork (on another conversion page, no less); all that we seem to know is that they were forced into a conversion, and they later distanced themselves and rejected the event.


 * The application of a by-the-rules system to the forced conversion section is inadvisable, as it's certain that many "converts" consider their conversions invalid or simply for show and continue practicing their previous faith (additionally, any forced conversions to Christianity can also be argued as "invalid", but the inclusion of such information is strongly POV; one should also note that many individuals deny the validity of other denominations, and the conversions therein, which can be evidenced when converts to Mormonism or the like are removed from the list).


 * The fact of the matter is that the sources claim that these men were forced to do so. The invalidity of belief or the later rescinding of the event are not good arguments against forced conversions because these things are, by nature, a natural element of such events (it is naturally done against the will of the "convert", and rejection naturally follows, though not in all cases, of course). I know I'm not the first person to bring this up (nor is this the first time that I myself have brought this up), and with good reason.--C.Logan 02:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. No the men are not renouncing their conversion, but are saying that it never took place.
 * 2. The professor is not making a general comment, but made a very specific comment with regards to this case, so he is definitely relevant.
 * 3. If someone converts to a religion, then can't they be considered a part of it. I mean if Malcom X converted to Islam, then he is a Muslim right?
 * Really, the fact of the matter is, whether the conversion happened or not is under dispute, both by the persons themselves, and by reliable secondary sources. Sure, there are some sources that say it happened, others deny it. Considering both the men are alive, I'm not sure if its a good idea to list them. Or maybe we can list them under "disputed" conversions.Bless sins 11:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not be
Pushy if u want to discuss something with people properly --Z yTalk 14:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Z y, I do not appreciate my comments being dissected, nothing personal. If you're going to accuse me of "attacking", then you are only escalating the antagonism. I said clearly: Do not interrupt my comments. Per WP:TALK, you should exercise caution in doing so- some individuals don't care, but most certainly do. I've moved your replies to the end so that you can quote the specific text you're replying to. Additionally, if you're going to interrupt comments, be sure to use indentation. It's unreadable otherwise.--C.Logan 15:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have responded in that way with a view to being clear about what I am talking about...In the name of being understandable and readable! --Z yTalk 18:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently, you again misread my comments. Re-read the penultimate sentence.--C.Logan 20:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Silent Vigil
I am giving away this userbox as a sign of solidarity with our good friend Matt57. The gross injustice purportrated against him shall be met with peaceful non-violent protest. Please place on your userpage until this excessive and unjust ban is reversed. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 07:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Trinity
Thanks very much for the heads up. I'm going to have to do some reading before I properly look at those edits, but a lot of it looks pretty POV to me. But then again, I'm a proponent of what it's implying is outside the bounds of orthodoxy, so I am arguably somewhat biased! I'll try and take a look in some books and ask whether a) my views are outside the bounds of orthodoxy and wrong, and b) whether I'm being biased in my response. TJ 00:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your invitation
I'm afraid I can't get involved there. I can't even follow the discussion on the talk page, as interleaved as it is, so I can't really make out what the issues are ATM. I also don't have a lot of sources on the topic. My knowledge of Church history is heavily skewed eastward, so I have virtually nothing to say about Luther, et. al. It does seem as if a dissension within the Church isn't quite a "Criticism of Christianity" per se so much as an argument over what exactly Christianity should be. Proper criticism of Christianity from within Christianity might have more to do with how large groups might not be living according to the Gospel as they might. My sense is that critiques of Christianity qua Christianity from within are relatively recent, but I don't read such authors. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Criticism of Muhammad
You were once (possible still are) interested in the use of Ibn Warraq in the article. A proposal (that has the backing of several users) mandates that Warraq may be used only if his criticism is quoted by a third party reliable source. This ensures that his criticism is notable, and we don't have to circumvent WP:RS. In my opinion it is a reasonable compromise, what do you think?Bless sins —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't been following the argument in general, and therefore I'm unsure whether or not I agree that we should resign to the judgment that Ibn Warraq is not reliable on his own. It would seem reasonable, however, that such information could be incorporated until the matter is settled, and ultimately would be the best option if the reliability of Ibn Warraq cannot be established.--C.Logan 20:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The matter appears to be settled. Editors in favor of including Ibn Warraq (including you) have been absent from the talk page. No one has done anything to establish Warraq's reliability. On the contrary evidence has been produced that suggests Warraq is not reliable. Thus, I take it you agree with the compromise suggested above ("would be the best option if the reliability of Ibn Warraq cannot be established").Bless sins 20:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I hop of extending the above compromise to other sources whose reliability can't be established (i.e. answering-christianity, answering-islam).Bless sins 20:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

the Quran
I wrote in hisd page because he ignored from the discussion page. There was topic there one before the last.132.72.71.114 20:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Please read discussion and answer.Regard.132.72.71.114 20:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Mary
Just to note, the editing situation on Mary (mother of Jesus) has involved the cooperative editing of 3 suspected sockpuppets (along with 1 anonymous user with a similar editing history) persistently towards the same end. The user(s?) edit to varying degrees, but most commonly want to change "relations" to "sex", for whatever reason. This is pointless, because both terms are general and essentially interchangeable- and as none of these sockpuppets have ever provided an edit summary, or posted on a talk page, it doesn't seem like this editor cares much to express reason. My main objection here to the "sex" word change is that it's entirely unnecessary, and unsupported. Not to mention, entirely redundant, as the "Ancient Non-Christian Sources" section already details the exact same thing with specificity.

Take a look at the edit histories:
 * Laughing Joker (puppeteer): Intelligent design, Creationism, Mary (mother of Jesus)
 * Joker828: Creationism, Mary (mother of Jesus)
 * CptHowdy: Intelligent design, Creationism, Mary (mother of Jesus)
 * JokersWild1: Intelligent design, Mary (mother of Jesus)
 * 97.82.225.246: Creationism, Mary (mother of Jesus)

With this in mind, I'm very skeptical of anything these suspected puppets tries to add (one should note that the puppeteer is currently banned indefinitely), and considering the fact that the edits seem unproductive anyway, I'll continue to oppose these changes with a discerning eye. I'd like to make a sockpuppet report, but I'm a little green in that area (I feel as if the evidence is sufficient for a checkout, but I could be wrong).--C.Logan 01:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think a checkuser will even be required - though if the socks are indef blocked (are they?) then a sock report will be a bit unproductive, but if some aren't, then make the report -- the evidence is more than sufficient. Gscshoyru 01:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No- only Laughing Joker, the suspected puppeteer, has been banned. Thanks for your opinion.--C.Logan 02:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well CptHowdy has been too, and you can't indef an ip... but the others haven't. Make the report. Gscshoyru 02:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There appears to be an open case on the subject. I've notified the user who opened it concerning the additional evidence. Also, it seems that as Howdy was recently banned, I may notify the admin who did the banning as well.--C.Logan 02:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lovisa Augusti
Hi! It seems you have some questions about the singer Lovisa Augusti? I know the sources about her are in Swedish, as she was active in this country. I think it is sad if she is not considered relevant at the list of Converts. I don't think they were that many opera singers of jewish origin on the stage in the 18th century. --85.226.235.233 11:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you wish to have citations for her in the list of converts. The citations i know are in Swedish. One of them are the external link i used today to expand her article. I know sources in foreign languages are accepted in wikipedia, so perhaps that can be used? If not, it would be hard to expand wikipedia in these subjects. I don't know why you consider her insiginficant, so i won't argue with you there, but honestly; don't you think it's rude to say that i'm the only one "who seems to find information" about her, just because it is in a foreign language? Well, i don't want to argue with anyone! Best wishes! --85.226.235.233 12:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the foreign language sources are acceptable. I just need someone who is familiar with the language to do it, because I'm blind to the meaning of what I'd be adding. If at all possible, a footnote with a translation may be helpful, though I would advise you use careful grammar (you do not appear to be a native English speaker). In response to the rest of your comment, I've responded on your talk page.--C.Logan 12:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see, i misunderstood you, i'm sorry! You are correct that i am not a native English speaker. I thought you said more or less: "only one person seems to have this information, and therefore, i doubt the truth in this" - perhaps i shouldn't take part in English Wikipedia, i am aware that my English is bad. I suppose one judges people by experience, and i'm not used to being treated with respect. I know my English is bad, so maybe i have no buisness here! Anyway, sorry i misunderstood you!--85.226.235.233 12:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No no, you're more than welcome here on Wikipedia. I would just suggest that you use special care when contributing, because correct English grammar and spelling are, of course, important here. In any case, don't be too concerned about your lack of perfect English- it seems that most English speakers can't even speak their own language correctly, at times (myself included). And any way, you'll learn over time. In other news, I've largely finished re-working the Lovisa Augusti page. Can you specify which source states conversion?--C.Logan 12:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, i will certainly try spelling correctly! As for Lovisa Augusti; if you look at the editings, you will see, that the changes made today all comes from the external link, that i've inserted today; the information that was in the article before comes from the source cited before that. I remember some other questions you had; The judgement of her as Venus and Apollo was a metaphor to describe her talent made by the critics- this source does not mention specificly which critic, only that it was the general wiev; it sounds strange to a modern person, but it was a typical way of phrasing good critic in those days. --85.226.235.233 13:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and i've seen some other of the things you questioned. Regarding her education, the written source states, that she was "likely" not formally educated, so it was probably just a citation from this source. I think that it would have ben mentioned if she had ben educated formally; the source gives the impression, that she and her father was poor, and that she was thaught by him during work, and was selfthaught by natural talent and didn't neeed formal education. But i can't really say more about that. Some smaller things; as for the characterisation of her in the article, the description of her was a mere physicall description of her as "Small" and pretty. As the cover of Elisabeth Olin, she was by all expected to replace her when Olin retired, if Caroline Halle-Müller had not unexpectedly arived from Denmark in the 1780s. I hope this was of some help!--85.226.235.233 13:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help. I'll make the changes a little later.--C.Logan 13:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Rock Pigeons
I've transferred information to a new article on Feral pigeons.Barbara Shack 12:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that. Did you consider discussing this change first, or providing reasoning on the page itself at all? This is a fairly big change, and it would seem that information directly pertaining to one particular species should belong on that species' article, whether or not it takes up an extensive amount of space (and in this case, the information on feral pigeons is one of the more relevant sections within the Rock pigeon article.--C.Logan 12:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel the rock pigeon articvle is too long. I'm copying this to  the discussion page of Feral pigeon. Barbara Shack 13:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Laughing Joker
Hi. Thanks for contacting me. I have replied on my talk page so that the discussion can be kept in one place so that any other users, who may be able to help, can easily follow a discussion regarding this. Thanks. Tbo 157  (talk)    (review)  15:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sweed666
Is this the darlin' little signature forger of whom you speak? -- Orange Mike 14:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the one. I guess I forgot to mention it when I replaced the warning tag on Hyperbole's page.--C.Logan 15:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Men allowed to beat wives
I'm just saying, that has to be more clear. When people read it they'll get the wrong impression and plus it wont make sense to them when they read that the love of a husband and wife is the sign of god, and men are still allowed to beat them. Like I wrote, you cant actually physically beat them. Just a firm talk and maybe a small little light slap on the back. Instead of re-adding it you should help out and make it more clear .--TelusFielder


 * I'm drawing blanks on the specific edit your talking about (lack of sleep has destroyed my memory). If I reverted changes or removed text, you can be assured it is because I see it in some conflict with either WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:A, WP:V, or any of the other policies and guidelines we abide by here on Wikipedia. So please, clarify this for me if you can.--C.Logan 01:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Probly the edit to Talk:Criticism of Islam on the 16th. -- Orange Mike 19:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the direction, although I see it as being on the 17th.--C.Logan 20:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To Telus: Again, that's one perspective on the matter; the best that one could do is source your supported interpretation and add it as an alternate view (In basic form: "X says that Y allows men to beat their wives, but modern scholars argue that one can only beat lightly", etc.). To erase the text when the source supports the view is incorrect. Some argue that "lightly" is a necessary qualifier, while others don't, and therefore you shouldn't remove sourced information, but add a source and an extra statement explaining your supported viewpoint.--C.Logan 21:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It is estimated that 50,000 clergy were executed by the end of the Khrushchev era
Apropos the above, see my comment at the bottom of the discussion page. Also, I'll take the nerve to make some factual corrections of the names of some autonomous structures within the ROC as I know the subject pretty well. In fact, part of the problem is that in Russian the term "autonomy " is understood somewhat differently and the Moscow Patriarchate has been very stubborn in not granting the status in so many words to any of the listed structures except that of Japan. The actual Russian word they use vis-a-vis the rest is самоуправляемые церкви (literally -- self-governing churches), which, I appreciate, sounds like six of one or half a dozen of the other, but...Muscovite99 17:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation
I wonder what exactly you would like to see cited. If you mean the quoted part I can provide the reference to the USSR Constitution as the phrase is from it; if you mean "atheism was sponsored by state and was taught" part, it can be qualified as a universally known thing.Muscovite99 18:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Quotations and excerpts should always be cited, so that would be good. Additionally, I don't believe that is a universally known fact, and as it could honestly be disputed by those with a view askew, so I believe a citation for that claim is certainly in order.--C.Logan 18:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's so universally known, it should be easy to find a cite or two to document it. -- Orange Mike 14:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

article
You are making the accusation that certain passages aren't "original reserach" "aren't neutral" and "arent good faith"

we can't take them seriously until you are specific.

68.58.71.152 02:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Although I've already sent you a message on your talk page, I'd sent it before I'd seen this here. First of all, the Bible is not a sufficient source for "contradictions", as that very concept is based on a subjective interpretation of the text itself. It is against WP:OR and general policy to interpret primary sources directly and include such information within the article. Only secondary sources can be cited when offering interpretations of primary source material; it is simply too easy to create original research otherwise. This is why myself and others oppose such an addition on the talk page.

Additionally, the problem of neutrality exists in the fact that you are eliminating an entire side of the argument because you consider it invalid/disagree with it. Unfortunately, this is a violation of WP:NPOV. All articles must adhere to this policy, and "criticism" articles must deal with both sides of the article as well. The primary case with the section you'd changed (at least the one at the top of every diff) is that there are two sides of discussion concerning a point for which Christianity is often criticized. To remove all the points from the opposing side and add more information to the remaining side creates an illusion of majority or even unanimity, which is certainly not in adherence to WP:NPOV. I read things I disagree with all the time, and we all have a personal right to do so. However, this is an encyclopedia, and all arguments on a particular topic must be represented.

Finally, the last link which I'd directed you to was in your consistent accusation that my edits cater to my bias, as if that is my primary (or sole) motivator. As I've explained, every edit/reversion I've made against your version is in accordance with policy. I get very insulted when I'm accused of bias, because it's more often than not a case of my removing rule-breaking information; of course, most people don't understand why I'm removing it, and assume it's because of who I am or what I believe. The only extent to which my bias influences my involvement here is concerning the choice of articles which I edit (and also because it is one of my primary fields of study). Obviously, one with familiarity on a topic will tend to stay with those articles; I'd be much more useful on religion-based articles than, say, at Carpentry or something. Beyond that however, all edits made to the articles themselves are in accordance with policy, and not motivated by self-interest.--C.Logan 03:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Trinity
I wonder where PiCo got that idea. I think this is the first time I've encountered a theory that Trinity was something the NT authors deliberately cooked up.

You should be aware that Orthodoxy does not teach any theory of gradual revelation as you described it. "Progressive revelation" refers to God revealing himself throughout history, more and more fully in stages, until his final self-revelation in Christ. The apostles were in full possession of the truth as he taught them, and articulated it as fully as necessary for their preaching. If you believe the Trinity is the truth, then the apostles must have known it. Dogmatic statements aren't new truths, but new expressions of truths that have always been present in the mind of the Church. The difference in thought on "doctrinal development" is a principal one between us and the Roman Catholics. See, for example, : "Many Orthodox theologians are opposed to the idea that earlier dogmatic affirmations can include in tacit or implicit fashion hidden truths of faith that may be teased out by the later Church. They stress that dogma is simply the analysis of what has already (in the apostolic period) been uttered. The fullness of revealed truth is always present, they stress, in the Church, though in dogma that fullness is recapitulated as an expression of the Church's consciousness in a way particularly well-suited to dealing with the problems, and the errors, of some given time." He's soft-peddling it a bit here; he's an RC writer and is trying to minimize the appearance of our differences, but he explains the issue clearly and for the most part accurately. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Jesus
I saw that earlier today, but there's just nothing to be done with such a user. At this point he's pretty clearly trolling, or if not he's so determinedly ignorant he's ineducable. (What do you do with someone who think an English patronymic is an example of the genitive case? English barely has a genitive at all.) You might as well ignore him. Jesus is semi-protected, so as an anon user he can't edit it, and won't be able to for the better part of a week after he creates an account. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I agree with Csernica that this user is probably beyond reason and not worth arguing with. Unfortunately, (s)he doesn't need to register to edit Iaso, which since 2006 has contained a section of implausible and badly-sourced etymological speculations. I don't intend to let this back in the article without better sources than 19th-century theosophists, but if you wouldn't mind watching this article too, I'd appreciate it. EALacey 10:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem.--C.Logan 23:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd thought so, but my Christian side got the better of me. I'll not poke my nose into that again. If they continue, you might want to head over to the Admin noticeboard.  bibliomaniac 1 5  A straw poll on straw polls 04:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already been thinking about it. I've asked another user involved on the Iaso page to help compile a list of any problems this user has given. The anon is pushing his/her OR material on that page, as it is not semi-protected. In any case, thanks offering a word or two.--C.Logan 04:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. And although it doesn't seem to have had much impact on the anon user, I certainly appreciate your taking the time to explain clearly what's wrong with how that user interprets his/her sources. EALacey 19:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

constructive criticism
Hey, this is the guy from the criticism of christianity webpage. I noticed you keep altering the science content with information from theologians under the "criticism" section. The goal of the section is to be fair.. and seeing as how Bruno was gagged, stripped naked, and burned alive at the stake for believing other planets existed.. I think you should leave the christian propaganda out of it. If you are interested in the history of christianity.. you can read from Jesus to Christianity by Professor Michael White at the University of Texas at Austin. He's not a theologian: He's interested in actual evidence. He's a christian and he tells you what the latest evidence says about the Bible and the earliest christians from the world of acadamia. There are many other resources if you are interested in truth and knowledge, rather than just maintaing a belief in Jesus or whatever it is. Truth has to be subserviant to hopes and wishes.. and you'll find it if you keep reading. Please keep the section neutral. I don't mean to be a prick. But the christian images are ridiculous and for the ununeducated ignorant who think there was truly no conflict between Christianity and science. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm trying to provide you with oppurtunities to gain more knowledge about christianity while maintaining the integrity of the page in the process. Feel free to respond. Yours 74.128.175.136 03:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, let me get a few thoughts out in the open: please do not push your own beliefs on my talk page, especially when it appears that you think that I'm uneducated in the matter, which is something that I find deeply offensive (wouldn't you?). It's not so much that we disagree on things, which is fine, but I take great offense when people think that A.) I'm editing things in favor of my bias, rather than policies and guidelines, and B.) that what I believe now is simply because I'm ignorant on the subject. I'm not, and I was an atheist/agnostic for the great majority of my life. I've studied the history of the church excessively, and theology excessively, and I've been extremely skeptical in both directions, critical and apologetic. I'm a rational individual, and I remain unconvinced by the "caricature" of Christian history as bloody, ignorant, and chaotic.


 * It is, in fact, my research into this subject that changed my original perceptions of it, and I'm rather glad that I took the time to study both views- and again, this is not a result of my bias, as this proceeds it. Yes, there were many negative acts perpetrated throughout the history of Christianity. I'm not denying this. But unfortunately, your own belief goes too far into the other direction- perhaps in a manner that I would even call unscientific. Any individual can compose a book and use it to paint a particular picture. I've read many critical books and articles, and while many contained slight elements of truth, I would invariably find a large amount of embellishment and even outright falsehoods (I do indeed check sources). Therefore, I hope we can let assumption B to rest, and hopefully, by that measure, A.


 * As it stands, the article version which I've reverted to is the version which adheres to a neutral point of view. I fail to see how you reason that the removal of dissenting opinions of the matter makes an article "NPOV"; additionally, you appeared to remove large amounts of sourced text to replace it with unsourced information. Please don't use Wikipedia as a propaganda device. Please adhere to a neutral point of view. Please do not add unsourced information. And please, assuming that you are an irreligious individual, do not proselytize your beliefs to me on my talk page, because I'm certain that you wouldn't appreciate it if the shoe was on the other foot. I hope we've reached an understanding on the manner.--C.Logan 06:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)