User talk:CTSWyneken/Archive 3

Can you lend me a hand?
On the December 25 article, most of the people in the discussion seem inactive now, and now all that's left are 2 people, an admin and someone else, who literally do not want the "Christ" mentioned in relation to "Christmas". The admin was responsible awhile ago for starting an enormous edit conflict on BCE/BC concerning when Jesus was born, and i've tried making a topic on the talk page about it, but I could use some help if you have any time :). Homestarmy 15:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We can quote ourselves as sources if we write our own articles in real life? And if you can help at all, thanks :) Homestarmy 16:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Howdy
I don't think I have ever created a subpage before, aside from in my usertalk when I archive my older talk discussions...try a look at WP:SP and see what that says...I can creat a subpage off your userspace, but I don't think that is what you want...is the discussion so extensive it can't stay on the Jesus talk page?--MONGO 13:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Go to the page you want me to delete, hit edit, copy the text you want to keep and then save it until you create the subpage and you can paste it in...you probably already figured that one out. I have to run, but will speedy the page later tonight. Sorry, I wasn't more help on this, I am just a little short on time now. As far as Robsteadman...ignoring him may be best if he continues to bark. If not, then other action may be necessary. Oh, maybe Tom Harrison can beat me to the speedy delete if you prefer.--MONGO 13:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the article has been switch over and the old one deleted...good job. Sorry I wasn't more help on this.--MONGO 04:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I also looked over your commentary and I see nothing about it except an honest attempt to maintain peace and to request that he do the same. Let me know if there is anything else you need.--MONGO 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Been doing that
Oh man, welcome to the club. I've been telling people to do that for weeks. That's the only way to go at this point, unless he brings up something new. I don't want to arbitrarily excluede him. He is a memebr of the community and if he brings up a good point, then I'm all willing to engage him (although no good deed goes unpunished with him right now see the bottom section of his talk page) But I totally agree. See yah.Gator (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Rob Don't worry, I've already decided to back off a bit from confronting the uncivil because I don't want to be caught in the middle again. Besides, I've noticed that there are those who can confront Rob's methodology better than I can. Yeah, Gator's right about the club and I'm a firm member of the club. I've also tried to bring Avery Krause around (since Avery's the strongest advocate of more direct action). If Rob gets in trouble it should be for his incivility and for no other reason.

I will, however, continue to debate with the civil when I feel I have something to say. You may have noticed the long debate we had with Homestarmy over the definition of Judaism ;) Homes is eager and I just hope that his eagerness does not get him into trouble.

I'm basically a Perotite: we should just stop bickering, lift up the hood of the car and get to work. Arch O. La 20:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: I think Rob's basically the antithesis to this guy. Don't worry, most of us see the wisdom in not polarizing debate. Arch O. La 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That guy seems to be embroiled in quite the controversy, what's going on with him anyway? Homestarmy 22:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman Replies to my Message
Before you engage me on the message I sent you, please be advised Robsteadman has been reading them and has replied on his talk page. My response is there, for the record. --CTSWyneken 21:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well of course he's reading them, we're not trying to hide anything here. This is all very public. He claims to be gathering "evidence" but I'm just interpreting that as quasi legal thtreats and more examples of him being uncivil. No one has ever been making those kind of threats to him, but I'm sure he sees it as justified becuase we're the POV pushers and he's the good guy...so that means that you can do what you want (include violating the 3RR). The rules only apply if you're "wrong" but if you're "right" then it's OK. Very sad.Gator (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, it doesn't change a single thing. I even advised him to treat us the same way. --CTSWyneken 22:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We just need to AGF as much as we can and try to work with him by setting the right example.  If he's game, this can work.Gator (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you think he realizes that he can't file charges of any kind without two other editors? Or that he has to attempt reconciliation? --CTSWyneken 22:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I dunno. If he focused more on reconciliation he'd have more success than any RFC against anyone.  I tried (see his user page) but he just responded with more incivility.  I'm not going to let it bother me though.  When he gets blocked he gets worse, so I think he'll be a little better (at least) when he gets off the block tomorrow.Gator (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have also tried sympathetic confrontation, but had to withdraw when I felt I was being pulled too far in Rob's direction. Right now I think the best thing is to leave the debate with Rob to his fellow Naturalists. If even moderate secularists object to Rob's methods, then we will have a stronger case. Even if they don't, maybe they'll calm Rob down and we'll continue to have more civil discourse.Arch O. La 22:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is he really cannot effect us or the article very long if we do not let him. He can say whatever he wants; If we do not engage him, it only occupies archive space. If he makes a reasonable or new point, we can work with it. If he makes unilateral edits, we each have two reverts to his three. If he goes over, he's annoyed enough admins to be blocked again and again. --CTSWyneken 00:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. I've been trying to tell everyone else that. BTW I heard from SOPHIA and she has been following the debate, even if she chooses not to get involved. I've been trying to think of what this all must look like to an outsider, and perhaps we can all do better. That said, some of us have done better than others ;) I appreciate your attempts to moderate. My own approach has been to play the middle against both sides, but that can only go so far. What we need is a balanced, civil debate, and I pray all three improve soon. (I do think we've been doing better in the last week or two). Arch O. La 00:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Rob is at it again, I don't know what to do, if that link he gave for "extant" doesn't say "existing" at least in one of the definitions, it's dead wrong, I know what extant means because I learned it in school, a school a wee bit more verifiable than the internet I dare say. And why is he jumping into the Nicene Creed thing, is he just going to argue with every move we make no matter if he's involved or not? Homestarmy 16:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we should argue over a wikilink (I say before I've seen it). We can always edit that page. --CTSWyneken 20:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

well it seems Robsteadman found an ally, and unfortunently, it looks like this person is just as adept as asserting their POV to be absolutly correct no matter who says what. I tried to get out of the debate but this person keeps bringing up new twists to the debate, and then he/she threw in some random stuff about the Q document, where is this person coming from? Homestarmy 20:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy
Please take a look at the Talk page (Talk:Timeline_of_unfulfilled_Christian_Prophecy) of this article. —Aiden 04:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

User page restored
I have returned my userpage to its original appearance. I wanted to make a statement, and it has been made. drboisclair 19:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of this vote anyway?
Im not even really sure of what the new sentence is trying to say, the annoying extant problem is still there, but now consider is too like in the version we already have. What do you think? And if (As I sort of hope) Alienus says that the vote can last for like 24 hours, how would I make a line go through my vote? I kind of do mostly want it to be neutral, but I don't even know the terms of this vote. Homestarmy 02:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I use strike tags: &#60;strike&#62;Darn I didn't mean that!&#60;/strike&#62; Arch O. La 03:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. It looks like im going to lose anyway heh, I guess it's not a big deal, my main objection was the person asked for people to object, and then 1 minute later said "Well, we've got consensus, archive this and lets put it in". Homestarmy 03:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am tired of votes but if its the only way of removing nonsensically POV pushing then sobeit. Once the page is unprotected we should remove the bit about as the POV warriors only allowed that to last for 48 hours. Robsteadman 07:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Fast one
I was not trying to "pull a fast one" I was trying to construct a sentence explaining that the lack of documentation is a fact - but considering that fact important is an opinion. One is data and the other is analysis therefore subject to POV. SOPHIA 08:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, I don't mind if we say someone says something if we say which someone is saying. I do think she made a good attempt at formulating the sentence, as have many others. If we keep debating this sentence, pretty soon we'll have a lack of extant contemporaneous editors! Arch O. La 09:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. When some editors are convinced there is a cabal it's a good idea to be clear what you mean as your messages on various talk pages could be mistaken as a rally call. SOPHIA 18:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well the person went at I think 00:44 "Is there anybody who objects" and then at 00:45 I think "Since there are no objections, lets unlock, put this sentence in, and archive", now that's downright suspicious :/. Homestarmy 18:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's no worse than the quorum/cabal working to sway votes though is it? Let's stick to the verifiable and accurate. Robsteadman 19:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have learned to my cost that playing by the rules and being "out of the loop" is not a good idea so I must admit I do watch other talk pages. I don't want anymore surprise accusation to come my way.

Your very recent attempts to ask people to be civil are appreciated if a little late in some cases. We do not moderate other editors but I have been disappointed that apart from me and Archola the "christian" editors can say the most outrageous things about "hating christianity", being "loonies" or "having childhood issues" without comment by their own side. Some people need reminding to keep their manners and all conscientious editors should voice their discontent at ANY personal remarks appearing on the article talk pages.

I have been aware of your prompt actions in reporting Rob when you think he may breach the rules with his next move. Leaving a warning message on his page just so you can immediately tell a sympathetic admin that you have ticked off that box of the procedures to get him a step closer to another ban is reprehensible and not in the spirit of consolidation. I have professional experience of the mediation process and that would be seen as an attempt at constructive dismissal.

These pages will always attract opposing views. Rob is not actually unreasonable when he is not insulted or cornered by what he sees as a "cabal". He was right about the silly "two sets of dates" thing as we all agreed. When I posted a compromise passage making clear the data vs POV part of the historicity sentance he immediately supported it along with several others. This process has only now stalled because you chose to confuse things with other options that have split the ground.

I also consider asking people with no current editorship of the article to vote pretty bad form. SOPHIA 19:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I also watch talk pages (any page I edit goes automatically into my watchlist), and butting in is part of my political philosophy. I actually found SOPHIA's proposed compromise reasonable even though I voted neutral. I'm just concerned that the whole "extant contemporaneous documents" thing cloulds the real issue, which is that scholars debate the veracity of the texts. (BTW outside of Paul's letters, are there any documents from before the destruction of Herod's Temple? Just curious). I was also uncomfortable with providing a reason for the minority but not the majority. I agree with you that the issue is better dealt with elsewhere than in the introduction, but some are taking this to mean that we are supressing the evidence. Quite frankly I think the voting has gotten too polarizing, and I choose to abstain.


 * Your efforts at promoting civility are appreciated.Arch O. La 20:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about all this CTS, you didn't do anything wrong. You're doing a better job with this article than just about anyone (especially me ) and have violated no policies or principles blah blah blah. Keep up the fine work.Gator (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman
Not that I accuse anyone of anything, just a reminder to play nice with User:Robsteadman.--MONGO 22:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am neutral to the situation and will look at everyone with an even eye.--MONGO 22:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

URL
The URL to Project Wittenburg seems to have expired on 20/2/06.Robsteadman 12:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

votes
Sure thing. And "they" will just have to take what they can get, especially if the point is to build consensus. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to ask, which circle of hell is relegated to eternal ineffective voting?Arch O. La 17:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus
Thank you for your invitation to come and vote. But consensus to me is when all agree, and no vote is needed. I see three alternatives with an equal amount of votes so far. Am I looking at the wrong vote? Perhaps you could link me to the correct one? DanielDemaret 15:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Luther's strict upbringing
Please look at this emendation on Luther. I feel the paragraph should be removed on the better authority of Brecht. drboisclair 16:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus vote
Thank you for letting me know. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sacramental Union article
Please see this new entry, and render your assistance in refining it as you are able. drboisclair 20:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Technical Assistance with Jesus Final Vote
Hey there. Just wondering if you'll be around at 0400 tonight and would be able to lend a hand with the technical side of the vote stuff.

I essentially need someone to archive the votes and comments from the vote while I tally and recreate the vote table (for hopefully the last time). At this point, the numbers show that only the two largest votes will remain on the board (by percentages), so hopefully we'll have a clear majority on that vote and we'll be able to move on.

After that final vote occurs, I would like to see every last bit of discussion on that page concerning that blasted sentence shipped into Archive land with a nice big notice on the main talk page that says "Any further discussion on the 'Historicity' line of paragraph two should take place here (with link)." Maybe people on the archive page can come up with a better line after thirty days, but most people seem to agree that we just need to move on.

You seem to be the Archive Master of the 'Talk:Jesus Historicity Conflict of Winter 2006,' can you do this schtuff for me? Thanks one way or the other! --Avery W. Krouse 06:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

CTSWynekan, I've noticed that Wikipedia is six hours ahead of CST; therefore, it must be five hours ahead of US Eastern Time. 0400 Wikipedia time is 11PM EST the previous day. I hope this helps. Arch O. La 12:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Would it be out of line to archive almost all of it prior to then. I should be tucked away for the evening by then. --CTSWyneken 12:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I leave that to you and Avery. I'm engaged in an absurdist protest myself. Arch O. La 18:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, just wanted to mention, I already archived a lot of that at Talk:Jesus/Historicity Reference. See if you can merge the two appropriately (especially the vote tallies and the "Do not vote here" warnings. --Avery W. Krouse 16:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Final vote/questions
Thanks again for letting me know. Regarding your two questions, I don't think Robsteadman's characterization of you is at all accurate, and you can either ask the protecting admin to unblock, or ask for unprotection on the WP:RFPP page. Jayjg (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on, you didn't really have doubts did you? Don't doubt for a second that you're doing just fine. It's other people's problems (biases, anger issues, POV) that are effecting them, not anything you're doing. Keep it up.Gator (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

These are the souls that try men's times. No, wait, that's not quite right...Arch O. La 18:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense I suppose. As a pretty untraditional protestant I didn't even know it was Ash Wedensday until I saw it on my calendar! Self examinaiton is good, but never doubt that you're doing the rigth thing when you know what the rules are and when you have your level of experience and integrity. Keep it up!Gator (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Something seems odd about User:Robeaston99. Check their user contributions. Any thoughts? --Avery W. Krouse 14:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Effectively, I suspect the possibility of sockpuppetry. The edits are suspicious (in that Robsteadman wouldn't edit his own article, but he might sock to do so). And mysteriously, that signature appeared on the vote board while Rob's choice was still losing. The similarities between the names are suspicious as well, and beyond that Robeaston mysteriously disappeared until round about the time that Rob started getting blocked. I've asked Ann to run a checkuser on it, but I think I'll probably need to get someone else, as she's voted on the table. --Avery W. Krouse 20:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've asked for a usercheck. We'll see.  We should be careful to practive what we preach though.  No ju,ping to any conclusions or making accusations without solid proof.  AGF with Rob (both of them).Gator (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd not have bothered. On the scale of things, this vote is small potato. --CTSWyneken 21:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with the vote as far as I'm concerned. I was even thinking about that until you said it.  With Rob being blocked 3 times already, any sockpuppets could be used inappropriately. Also, if this is false, this takes care of the rumors and puts it to bed (like with Deskana).  Either way, it can only produce a good thing:  the truth.Gator (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * But Deskana's vandalism of my talk page was true. He was responsible for it. Robsteadman 22:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I just hope we don't get into some kind of slash and burn cycle next. --CTSWyneken 21:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears there are now accusations of voting irregularity on both sides. See my remarks on Avery Krause's talkpage about Bush and Gore. Arch O. La 21:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Now we're losing :(. (Or at least, I think we were awhile ago, it should be 19:19 right now) Good thing it isn't that huge a deal anyway. Homestarmy 22:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I resent the above - 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 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

- but there's no cabal at all! Robsteadman 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Rob. There should be NO accusation of sockpuppetry without sufficient proof (so that goes both ways, you need to stop trolling after Deskana when you know the evidence isn;t there if you don't want people to do it to you) and now that you've denied it, it makes it all the more important that there be solid evidence before people start throwign the word "sock" around. Oh and there is no cabal.  The sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be.Gator (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Quorum call" is no sign of a cabal being used? - YES IT IS. Deskana was responssible for the vandalism, at best through inappropriate use of his computer but the story doesn't hold up at all. As fro the sockpuppet claims against me - this is a nonsense trying to deflect attention from the real issues on the page, the cabal and deskana's vandalism, for which he should have been banned. Robsteadman 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no cabal, Rob and the evidence against Deskana isn't close to good enough. Even if it was, he wouldn;t be banned anymore than you deserved a ban for violated the 3RR three separate times. Let this one go. Glass houses and all.Gator (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

''' What do we do now? ''' Arch O. La 23:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What a mess! Maybe we should shout loudly on the Jesus talk page for everyone to be quiet. Maybe we need to even block the talk page long enough to get rational again. --CTSWyneken 23:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've proposed that we seek outside help, but to be honest I don't know if we can find anyone that everyone will agree on. I hope we can get rational again, but passion has run high on all sides. Arch O. La 00:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC) PS: Too many rams just want to collide heads. Arch O. La 00:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have plainly stated my opinion many a time here. I want to help, truly I do, but I will tell you right now, I am not going to tolerate Rob's return. The fact that he only got blocked 24 hours for sockpuppetry, after everything he has done, absolutely appalls me. Frankly, a week to a month would have been much more suitable. I am dead serious when I say he needs to have his butt dragged to RfC or ArbCom, as soon as he gets back. --Avery W. Krouse 05:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Something smells fishy here. If there's a trial (ArbCom) will Rob have a chance to confront the evidence? Arch O. La 05:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * He would. We couldn't bring him before ArbCom before his block expires (even if it was a long block, it would be lifted for him to attend his ArbCom). He would have all the same resources and recourses to defend himself as any other accused. --Avery W. Krouse 05:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Lutherans and Catholics
Look like Catholics?! This after Luther took a stand, because he could do no other? Besides, I thought the LCMS objected to the ELCA's joint statement with the Catholic church. Or am I confused? I have to admit, I am confused trying to parse the distinctions between ELCA, LCMS and WELS. Arch O. La 19:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, what you say makes some sense. I attended Solomon's Porch, an interdominational youth group led by Methodists and hosted at a Quaker university. At one point I gave a typical liturgical response to one of the Methodist minister's statements. He called it "high church" and "catholic." I don't know what "high church" means, but it wasn't Catholic, it was Lutheran.

On the other hand, it caused some tension in my family when my cousin Heather married a Catholic. We seem to get along better with Methodists. Arch O. La 19:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Love Your Latin
It may never happen -- Some of the editors are too rabid in either their evangelicalism or in their apparent atheism. (personally, I'm an agnostic who knows that all religions have their good, bad, ugly, beautiful and neutral aspects, and I'm happy when people find peace in their religion, but very unhappy when they try to ram said religion down my throat, or use the legislative system to impose their views). I've noted that a few of you are quite rational, and that bodes well, but I feel that the nutters may overwhelm the discussion, with their anger and rabid nature (Homo homini lupus).

In any case, I'll take your advice and pore through the archives, looking for a way that might work. Alas, as one might say, Roma non die construta est.Jim62sch 11:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm really glad to see we are in agreement about what the article should be. And you are 100% correct about the evangelicals of all varieties -- they need to engage in their gladitorial battles elsewhere.  It'll be interesting to see if the page can be guided toward being a more scholarly article.
 * (Oh, BTW -- I was raised Lutheran (LCA), but found far too many contradictions in the Bible to be able to suspend my skepticism. But, I've found the same or similar problems in all of the other major religions, so it's easier for me to just synthesise what I see as the best of their philosophies into my own philosophy, while leaving all the trappings of religion behind.) Jim62sch 22:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Lacking the "E" shows how long ago it was. :) Anyway, at a certain point in time, I was still willing to give things a bit of a chance, but I'm just too logical.  I can't suspend disbelief enough to believe (that sounds dumb, but you probably get my meaning).  I recall prior to my eldest son being baptised 20 years ago, the Lutheran minister asked me if I "renounced the Devil and all his works"...I stated that I did not believe in the existance of a Devil...after a v e r y long pause, he stated, "I'll take that as a yes".  (I know there was a moral in that story somewhere, but the 2-year-old just interrupted my train of thought...oh well) Anyway, one of the questions I posed on the talk page hadn't gotten anywhere as of yesterday: the question regarding the impossibility of a Jesus-Pilate conversation.  I'm kind of bummed that no one bit.  But, then, I don't know how many would have gotten my points anyway, especially without getting either overly elated or really mad. (BTW: I'm a really good linguist (yeah, yeah, yeah, be humble), so that plays into it, but it's hardly all of it). Anyway, if you'd be interested in talking about this and other things outside Wiki, feel free to send me an e-mail (no point in wasting a load of bytes in Wiki-land :) Jim62sch 23:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I truly despise sockpuppets -- I loathe dishonesty and deception. Jim62sch 00:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you live with being associated with an agnostic? ;) Jim62sch 00:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop Again?
Okay, we were discussing how best to phrase the Jesus-Myth position and went off on a tangent about various forms of Christianity. Sorry if that bothered you. BTW there is a warning template: This may come in handy in the future. I await the German translation...Arch O. La 01:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Not fully bothered. I'm just trying to get us focused. It's an old moderator's trick from 14 yrs. of listserv moderating. It sometimes works. Here you have to be an admin to really make it work. I'm curious too, but, once we're unblocked, I need to focus on inforcing the vote and finishing the documentation that you think folks would be eager to do. It's the fun part of this exercise. --CTSWyneken 02:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)