User talk:Clinkophonist/Archive2

Cheers, Bible verses
Hello Clinkophponist, I saw you joined WP:BIBLE recently. A request for you: can you look into adding textual analysis of the Bible to Wikisource, where it should properly flourish?

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/200_verses_of_Matthew for a long-running discussion of the matter. So far noone has taken the initiative to copy the excellent commentary and articles on Wikipedia to Wikisource... but whether or not that content fits Wikipedia's content goals, this material should clearly be on Wikisource.

Cheers, +sj + 09:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think WikiBooks would be better than WikiSource? Unless the commentary is copied straight out of the books that they seem to constantly reference, in which case we could just copy those books to WikiSource. Clinkophonist 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that was suggested in a poll some months back, and soundly rejected. --Doc ask?  18:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

2 Baruch, 3 Baruch
Excellent expansions on the texts. Do you have a source, or is your analysis based on reading the text? KI 20:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Lost Books of the Bible by William Hone
 * Secrets from the Lost Bible by Kenneth Hanson
 * The Lost Bible by J R Porter
 * Lost Scriptures by Bart D Ehrman

Clinkophonist 17:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Bible Page
Before I touch it, I might ask, what are the chances that it will stay and not be merged or deleted? Thanks. --Peter Kirby 08:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Fairly high, I hope. Its there as a summary page so that the material doesn't get duplicated or scattered around Wikipedia - there is a tendency for people to create pages like Things that are wrong with the Bible and Proof that the Bible is true, so the page exists to try to stop the content being split into heavily one sided articles. The material is frequently discussed on the internet so it will end up in Wikipedia one way or another, so it is better if it is contained in pages under as neutral a title as possible. Clinkophonist 12:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Gnosticism Template
I am the first to admit, that I am not an authority on Gnosticism.

However in editing the Gospel of Judas article, I noted that no such template existed. I thought it would be a useful template to have to help distinguish 'Gnostic' articles from 'Christian' ones and to provide a common box for articles with a Gnostic theme. I was hoping that this would reduce the number of dogma based battles that occur over edits on the articles about early Christian texts that never became canonized.

I noted that you contributed significantly to that template in your edits, and I wanted to thank you and let you know that I encourage you to continue for the template has already taken on a better form because of your contribution. I'm going to leave this same note on the user page of a few of the others have also improved the template.
 * LinuxDude 14:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There are dogma battles over edits? I can't say I've experienced any. Thanks for adding the template. Clinkophonist 21:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Jesus' disciples
Thanks for the work on this list at the bottom of Disciple. I had intended on finishing, but never got around to it. In my opinion, having just the 12 apostles listed four times is somewhat silly. My plan for the list was to go through each gospel and list any and all disciples and followers of Jesus as they are named in that gospel, but not limit it to the well-known 12. I was then going to break the list off from the article Disciple (as it somewhat biases the article toward a certain set of disciples). Having the chapter and verses given is a nice touch. -Acjelen 22:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add the chapter/verses. Clinkophonist 22:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Accidentally posted to my user page
I looked at the revised article "Gospel of Judas". The section at issue is o.k. now, IMHO. It now states why scholars think there might be an earlier Greek version. This was lacking before. I thought instead of doing original work, I was removing parts without supporting citations or explanation. It seemed to me that that paragraph was NPOV, since someone was trying to bolster the significance of this text by making it seem older than the actual physical manuscript without any evidence of the older age. Now that the article says why scholars think there is an older version it's fine. Have a great day!Iwalters 03:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The best way to make things neutral is to fill in the other side, or to bolster the points by checking out if you can find any explanations elsewhere. The worst way is just to delete the things that you don't like. Clinkophonist 22:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Salvation/Eastern Christianity
You might be interested to see the lengthy interlocution at Codex' user talk page, under the section entitled "Salvation," that has arisen regarding what I suspect he is trying to teach readers by means of how he words the statement that he doesn't want you to change. After much debate, I thought that we had finally reached an agreement upon what to do that at least would not impose his own (or, theoretically, Eastern Christianity's) beliefs upon a biblical verse. When he re-reverted your latest change, I was surprised to see that he was still reverting back to his own, earlier edit.

Originally, I only wanted to make sure the statement would be briefly qualified as being a belief that is held by Eastern Christians and not all Christians. I do not believe the statement's existence within the Eastern Religion section renders neutral wording unnecessary. The wording that Codex wants to keep intact asserts, as if it were fact, that there is a certain teaching in the Bible that Codex vociferously embraces, when the existance of that alleged teaching is actually contested from sotriological viewpoints that differ from his. He objected that he could not comprehend a valid belief that differs from the one he imposes upon Matthew 6:12-15, so I explained my own as an example. Regardless of whether one believes in salvation through faith, grace, works, or any given combination or lack of the three, there's no need to interject that opinion into the article using loaded semantics. Can something be done? Projection70 00:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If something is to be done, we need to work out if it is just a content issue for that article, or part of a wider problem with Codex - does he try to enforce his version of articles all over wikipedia, or is it just that one place?

If it turns out that it is all over wikipedia, then we should raise an RFC about "user conducT". Clinkophonist 00:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to go beyond just making sure the POV in that Eastern Religion sentence is fixed. Maybe the solution is for me to just go ahead and make the change to which Codex and I generally agreed. Perhaps then he will relent.

You can try, see what happens. But don't forget that there is a 3RR rule - you can only revert Codex three times, and he can only revert you three times. Clinkophonist 01:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What I said was that if my paraphrase of Matt 6:14-15 (which is accurate to the Eastern interpretation of it) is proving too contentious, then it would be better to quote the verses outright and let the reader decide what they mean wrt Salvation / forgiveness, instead of paraphrasing or interpreting them. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be better just to provide a link to the verses - - choosing one translation above another introduces its own biases; some translations favour catholic interpretations, some favour protestant ones, some favour secular ones. (P.s. at the moment that link template just links to conservative protestant versions, but at some point in the future the template should hopefully take you to a big list of all translations that are online (including catholic and critical ones). Clinkophonist 01:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The whole point is what the verses say. Either quote them, or explain what they mean and in what way they are crucial to the topic of Salvation, otherwise you are doing the topic a disservice by suppressing one of the major denominations' views. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No, don't explain what they mean. That's original research - your idea of what they mean is your opinion, not a fact. Quote or refer to the opinions of scholars/notable-figures of the subject, from as many notable sides of the fence as exist. For example, refer to the opinion of some major Eastern orthodox bishop. What about dissenting opinions? Are you seriously trying to claim that the entire Eastern orthodox church is a monolithic block and not a single person in it has a view that dissents? Clinkophonist 01:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, Bible verses are quoted in a great many articles already. We don't selectively apply the argument of different translations just to keep them from being quoted at all, just because some modern groups wish it didn't say what it says. I don't even know of any translations that would say something different there, but since it is the Orthodox section, the Orthodox English translation would make most sense. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No, but we don't selectively quote only the verses that support our bias either. Nor do we present our own interpretation of the verses, but instead present the interpretations given in referenced notable and relevant sources. Clinkophonist 01:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't care what version is used for those verses, since they all are in agreement in that particular place, but for the record, I am comfortable with the status quo that Projection70 just introduced. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Blank redirects, not helpful?
I noticed you not only readded a redirect that I moved to delete last month (John 6) but then you added a whole bunch of other ones as well. Here is the archived RfD:The nominated redirect was deleted. — Mar. 12, '06 [13:36]  I was hoping you'd understand my reasoning for wanting redlinks as opposed to redirects, and agree to have these recently created pages speedy deleted. The gospel chapter infobox template is fairly useless without the redlinks, because there is no way for a user to tell what articles actually exist and what ones simply are simply circular without clicking on each and every chapter link.--Andrew c 04:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * John 6 &rarr; Gospel of John -- Redlinks work a lot better than redirects for the purposes of the box. Imagine if every redlinked chapter was actual a redirect back to the parent Gospel. A user wouldn't be able to tell which chapters actually had content and which ones were just redirects. Since John 6 is the odd ball, I suggest this redirect be deleted Andrew c 07:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. AmiDaniel 09:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Makes sense to me.Herostratus 14:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like a simple newbie error. Page was created by an anon editor simply pasting in the text of the bible chapter and a later editor changed it to a redir instead of deleting the page. ~ Veledan • Talk 21:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete While there is considerable debate over the meaning of the chapter, it is best covered in articles on the doctrines involved and on the gospel itself. --CTSWyneken 02:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

No I don't agree. I think that organising things by an artificial division created in the medieval era, and duplicated between 3/4/5 gospels (e.g. Mark 16=John 20-21=Luke 24=Matthew 28), rather than under a single article covering each topic, is a very very inappropriate way to lay things out. Not a single encyclopedia I know of does so, and the only time I have ever seen it done is in literature written for sunday schools and the like. Wikipedia is not sunday school. Clinkophonist 10:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you think having the redirects is helpful, I have at least nominated the chapter template for deletion.


 * Template:Chapters in the Gospel of Matthew has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Andrew c 14:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis
I am assuming that you were not serious concerning the 'Jehovah God' 20 occurences in Genesis 2:4 - 3:23 (LORD God in KJV) all possibly being different sentence structures than are usually translated. I am reverting that statement. Also, either put in a reference for "[M]odern documentary hypothesis is currently supported by over 90% of academics in the field." or remove it. Dan Watts 19:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The reference is the Vatican. Clinkophonist 20:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a published reference, or is it chiseled in stone in the St. Peter's basilica? Dan Watts 23:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a quote of the Vatican's opinion in either the most recent works of Israel Finkelstein or Richard Elliott Friedman (unfortunately I forget which of the two it is in; as I have read both). Clinkophonist 23:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about the "jehovah god" occurences? Clinkophonist 20:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing about when chapter and verse divisions were delineated. I am discussing where the words Jehovah and Elohim appeared side-by-side in the text. (See Genesis 2:4 - 3:23 in the KJV notation - I don't know the way to reference in the Hebrew bible) The chapter and verse references are for ease of standard reference.
 * It is quite different to have the god, Yahweh / Yahweh El / the LORD God as in 2:4-3:23 than what is present in 1:1-2:3, which is just El / God, without Yahweh being mentioned. Indeed, the division is striking; there is a clear difference in the style of wording between 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-3:23; so much so that I would, at a glance, suggest they were written by different people. Clinkophonist 23:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

1 Cor 11 POV
Would you please discuss why you added the NPOV template on 1 Cor 11 on the Talk page? Thanks. --JBJ 04:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be because it seems as if a more descriptive title of the article would be Sermon by Miss Bushnell on 1 Corinthians 11. Bushnell isn't really a big scholar, or significant theologian, on the world stage, or over the 1900 years of Christian theological discourse. Clinkophonist 11:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Matthew 26
I would like to know why you've decided to re-revert my changes to Matthew 26. Matthew 26 does not fall into any of the categories on WP:NOT: (It is not a definition, not a list of a def, a usage guide, not a personal edit, not primary (original) research, original inventions, Critical reviews, Personal essays or Blogs, opinions on current affairs, Discussion forums, propaganda or advocacy, self-promotion, Advertising, Mere collection of external links or Internet directories, Travel guide, Memorial, News report, Genealogical entries, or instruction manual.) As such your reverts are questionable. Please remember you do not own the page, but I will assume good faith in that you know this already. --Knucmo2 13:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It violates Content forking. Its not the content itself that is the problem; its putting it at that location. We already have articles on the Last Supper, etc., we don't need the topics discussed in four other separate locations. Clinkophonist 14:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, agreed to an extent, WP:NOT is official policy where as POVFORK is more of a guideline. --Knucmo2 14:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * POVFORK is an explanation of the implications of WP:NPOV, which is an official, immutable, policy. WP:NOT is mutable. Clinkophonist 14:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Content of the Gospels
I like the idea of outline the content of the Gospels in their respective articles; however, do you think we could work on phrasing that's a bit more encyclopedic than "some stuff" and "some other stuff"? I recognize that it's important to indicate that there are events which do not overlap or which do not have or merit their own articles in the Gospels. It just seems like there's a better way we can state that. Any ideas? JordeeBec 19:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping people would quickly fill the blanks in. Im afraid I mostly read about the gnostics, and all the apocryphal stuff, so I dont really know all the normal titles and order of the canonical gospels. "some other stuff" was intended as "please insert whatever it is thats meant to be here". Im not really too sure whats considered significant enough to mention and what isnt, so I just put in everything I know about, and have seen lying around wikipedia, and put "some other stuff" in the gaps. Clinkophonist 20:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

1 Cor 11 Copyright
There is no copyright infringement on 1 Corinthians 11. I was citing my source, not stating that I had plagarized. Please take the steps to remove the violation. Please ask for clarification next time. --JBJ 15:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Its quite a big chunk to come from a single source. Its for Copyright Problems to decide if its a copyright violation or not now. Clinkophonist 15:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it's a lot from a single source; she invited the interpretation. Would it be better to also include other writers with the same interpretation? --JBJ 20:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Ephesians 5:21 content
Why have you removed the content of Ephesians 5.21? (By the way, this should be renamed to Ephesians 5:22.) And why not delete the article if you delete all the content? There is a formal proces of deletion that you are avoiding by simply removing and redirecting. A one sentence summary in Epistle to the Ephesians is hardly a "merge." Because articles already exist on single verses, and this verse is well known and often discussed, it's worthy of its own article. --JBJ 20:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't worthy of its own article. It isn't significant in its own right. Very few verses are worthy in their own right. There are articles on the verse Jesus wept and John 3:16 because they are both significant; Jesus wept is significant because it is known as the shortest verse in the Bible, and John 3:16 is a very popular Christian evangelism slogan (the New Testament in a nutshell, as it is often described). Neither of these things are true of Ephesians 5:21.


 * The content of Ephesians 5.21 was "It commands all Christians to submit to each other" and "It commands all husbands to submit to their wives and wives to submit to their husbands" and "It turns the idea of female submission on its head by demanding that husbands must likewise view their wives as authorative, intelligent and equal partners in marriage" and "feminists say it belongs with 5:22-33 rather than 5:1-20". Statement 3 is highly biased opinion masquerading as fact, as are statements 1 and 2, and all three could easily be combined into a single statement. Statement 4 is neither interesting nor encyclopedic nor notable. None of these statements are significant enough to make that a notable article in its own right, and clearly are not worthy for a course of action other than merging what is salvagable.


 * We cannot delete the article due to the Gnu Free Documentation Licence under which Wikipedia operates. The content was merged, which means, under the GFDL, that the entire edit history of where it was merged from must be preserved. This is true for all merges in wikipedia, the from article becomes a redirect, but is never deleted, even if it has a stupid title. Clinkophonist 21:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, I think you need to read up Wikipedia policy, starting with theDeletion policy. Also read that what you have done is called blanking and is a type of vandalism (WP:VANDAL). Saying that some verses are worthy of independent articles and some are not is very subjective, so I won't argue that Eph 5.21 is worthy because of importance. Any verse is worthy of content if there is encyclopedic content for it. That includes scholarly opinions. You may think some opinions are wrong or flimsy and that's fine, but they are still common opinions in the feminist community. If you think this article should not exist, you should nominate it for deletion. --JBJ 02:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, what I have done is called "merging". Feminist opinions belong at the article Feminist Christianity. If you are unable to argue that Eph 5.21 is worthy in its own specific right, then the article will remain merged and redirected. If you read the deletion policy, and the No personal attacks policy, calling someone a vandal is considered unacceptable, and may lead to you being blocked from editing. Clinkophonist 15:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa! No need to get upset. I didn't mean to offend. I'm just stating a fact; "Removing all or significant parts of articles" is vandalism. Sorry if I've said anything to disturb you. Merging implies not removing any material (unless its redundant). BTW, stating someone has committed vandalism is not offically a personal attack. There is a difference between "what you have done is considered vandalism" and "you're a vandal." Or, "your edit is POV" is good while "you're a bigot" is bad. Anyway, see Talk:Ephesians 5.21. I hope you have a nice day : ) --JBJ 03:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "You're a bigot" is exactly the same as "your edit is POV". Pretending you are saying something nicer is quite deceitful. Clinkophonist 18:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Resurrection of Jesus
An anon has just made a number of edits to this article, tilting it towards a more literal interpretation (in my opinion). Since you've contributed before, I thought you may want to review these additions. David Underdown 10:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fact template
Hi, regarding this, please don't subst: the fact template. It makes a mess! Substing is best for templates used on talk pages and for deletion tags. Thanks! Angr (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I never subst the fact template. I subst'ed the citeneeded template (its title is far more obvious as to its purpose). Its intended to make a mess - it should attract attention to the fact that a cite is needed. Clinkophonist 16:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They're the same template (they both redirect to Citation needed), but making a mess inside the edit box doesn't draw attention, it just makes things harder to clean up when someone does find and cite a source. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

(...some other stuff...)
Hey, I saw you were the one writing the content sections of Matthew and Luke. I removed all of the (..some other stuff...) from the list. You can still access them from the history if you are still working on it, but the placeholders just looked bad. I like the idea of getting around the "no page for each chapter" rule by listing articles that decribe the events. Just needs to have the full set, don'cha think? I might add some of the missing ones, but if you want to do it, that's great. Thanks.--Rayc 04:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Baptism of Jesus article
Hi,

I've made some edits to the Baptism of Jesus article -- some shallow, some deeper. I'd like to get consensus on them.

Thanks, --jrcagle 02:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject
I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints.

I also invite you to join the discussion on prayers and infoboxes here: Prayers_are_NPOV.

Thanks! --evrik 14:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure that I know enough about specific Saints to join the project. Can I have a think about that, I will need to see if I have access to enough books about them? I can do maybe a few English ones like Hilda, Cuthbert, and maybe CRMB. Clinkophonist 20:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I nominate Christina the Astonishing for the top 10 saints? Clinkophonist 19:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Gospel articles
I noticed you updating the bible references template, and I sincerely thank you for your efforts! I was wondering, assuming you have the time, if you wouldn't mind looking over the content dispute and recent edits of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke articles. I think we need fresh input in this debate. Right now it is between myself and another editor, so 3rd opinions never hurt. It's hard to reach a community consensus when no one seems to be watching these pages. Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 17:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Now you're making me mad. If you try to pull that B.S. again, at least have the courage to bring the article up for deletion, then you'll probably lose as all such previous attempts have, and then you can keep working on your personal division of the Bible based on your arbitrary standards that pretty much no other real Bible source uses. And when you copy info from one article to another, at least get it right as you constantly change my cites and insert you own uncited conclusions and hence make the article inaccurate.--Roy Brumback 22:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * People who rant are generally ignored. They often say that the side that is quick to anger, the side that calls the other names like coward and puller of B.S., is the side that has already lost the argument. Especially when it can't even provide the context.


 * Maybe you should have a nice cup of tea. Or you could just read Assume Good Faith and No Personal Attacks. Clinkophonist 23:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't drink tea, and I'm not attacking you, just your actions, and it is you with the bad faith by trying to get rid of these chapter articles with no discussion with me and it is you who are guilty of content forking by copying this stuff to other pages. You are pulling B.S. as we went through this a month ago.  There is going to be an article on each gospel chapter, and many others as well.  Chapter and verse is how it's been for a thousand years, and since we already cite chapter and verse in all the bible articles anyway, you're fighting a battle that's already lost.  Maybe coward is too strong a word, and I apologize, but why don't you then nominate them for deletion instead of just arbitrarily blanking them?--Roy Brumback 23:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Who exactly is the "we" in "we went through this". From what I can see you've made very few edits - less than 500. By stating there is going to be... and that people have to discuss things with you first you would seem to be asserting that you have ownership of those articles. Please learn what a wiki is and then read WP:OWN, which completely forbids claiming ownership of articles.


 * You seem to be working against the concept of wikipedia as an encyclopedia. You also seem to be unaware of the rule about not content forking - see WP:POVFORK; the Synoptic Gospels are called Synoptic Gospels precisely because they are very very similar on a line-by-line level, so discussing the subject matter of one of these 3 gospels in 3 different articles (one for each Gospel) as well as the encyclopedically titled one (e.g. Parable of X) completely violates the no forking rule.


 * You didn't read the cup of tea link. Maybe you should


 * You also haven't read No Personal Attacks. It clearly specifies that not attacking [person X] but attacking [person X]'s actions with derogatory terminology is still a violation of the rule.


 * You probably also ought to read Chapters and verses of the Bible. Here is a quotation from that article:
 * As much as any sentence in any book, any statement in the Bible is designed to be understood in its own context. Interpretation of isolated verses often leads to misunderstandings that would be clear if the same words were studied in context ... It may be tempting to assume that short quotations and quick snippets can be interpreted, applied, and utilized independently of their context. However, when the Bible was written, it was meant to be deeply pondered, sequentially studied, and fully considered.
 * (and)
 * The impulse to conceive of verses as independent, isolated units of meaning is strong, despite efforts on the part of Biblical scholars to discourage this.
 * i.e. chapter and verse divisions may have been created some 1000 years ago (actually they are much more recent), but scholars and academics view them as entirely inappropriate as blocks to treat seperately from each other.


 * Clinkophonist 23:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I notice you didn't answer my question about why you don't nominate them for deletion. Fair enough about the attacks, but when you pull this it really makes me mad.  And there is no content forking, as these are not unintentional creations of the same subject, there are purposefully created articles on each gospel chapter.  "We" did go through this about Luke articles and The Wicked Husbandmen, or was that another Clink I was fighting with over the content.  No, I don't own these, but as I pretty much wrote them all, it would be a courtesy to talk about this with me.  And you're blanking John too, which is not a Synoptic, so it seems you have it in for all gospel chapters, not just the synoptic ones.  And once again, if we are going to have episode by episode on TV shows and album by album and song by song by various groups and call that encyclopedic, then you can't claim chapter by chapter on the BIBLE is not encyclopedic.  And as it is you who are moving this stuff from the original article to elsewhere, if this is content forking, it is you who are guilty of it and so it is your "event" articles that need to be deleted.  Not that I think they should be, or that episode by episode is bad, I actually like it, I'm only trying to show you the fallacy of your logic  And which scholars are you talking about as all my scholarly books go chapter and verse and they were all written in the last twenty years.  And I see you just pulled it again, so here we go, it's on.--Roy Brumback 00:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously trying to argue that out of the choice of Luke 24 and Resurrection of Jesus it should be Resurrection of Jesus that got deleted?


 * I don't call episode by episode TV show guides encyclopedic. But you have to admit that almost all TV shows that are episodic are just that - most are deliberately designed to have been split into those chunks and most episodes are distinct and whole narrative segments (or on rare occasions part 1 of 2). That is not the case with the bible; the New Testament did not come with verse or chapter divisions, and the chapter divisions are pretty much arbitrary - why does episode X exist at the start of chapter B rather than at the end of chapter A - no-one ever bothers to explain this because it is near-universally accepted that ther is no significance between the two options.
 * Your scholarly books are all written by Christian apologists, and are Concordances not Encyclopedias. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a Concordance; this appears to be the point you fail to see. If you check out any encyclopedia covering biblical matters in detail, e.g. the Catholic Encyclopedia, or the more critical Jewish Encyclopedia, or the very scholarly Oxford Companion to the Bible, you will see that they hardly ever cover the subjects chapter by chapter or verse by verse, and almost always cover them under titles like Parable of X or Incident of J or Z of Jesus or Mary the A B C.
 * I've also noticed that your so-called scholarly references don't once mention the position of people like Bruce Metzger, even though he is a major New Testament scholar (just take a look at the list of books he has worked on).
 * Tell me, if Chapter by Chapter divisions are so good, why is the most noticeable thing about your Chapter articles that they are split into episode by episode sections?


 * And since you seem to think that we have had this discussion before and that you came out on top, you really ought to take part in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible, where seriously well respected editors like User:Wesley would seem to be supporting my position.


 * And I would re-iterate that :Maybe you should have a nice cup of tea. Clinkophonist 00:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So let's take your irrelevancies one by one. As I said, I DON'T think event articles should be deleted, I think there should be a Resurrection article and a Luke 24 article too.  I'm merely pointing out that if someone takes info from one article and puts it in another and then declares the first article guilty of content forking that strikes me as a bit disingenuous, but that's just my opinion.


 * If you don't think we should have episode by episode on TV shows, then I'm sure I'll soon see you fighting to delete or merge all South Park or Simpsons articles if you are really so bugged by content forking.


 * No, the Bible was not written with chapters, but they were added for a good reason, quick scholarly reference, as Wikipedia itself does by continuously citing chapter and verse for quick reference. So if in the future someone wants info on say Mark 1, you would have them read all the articles about the gospel, the baptism, the temptation, the curing, calling of disciples, ect. and filter out in their own minds analysis on Mark 1.  Sounds pretty silly to me, but that's just my opinion.


 * Now, as you dogged my books, let's take them one by one. But first, they are not all from Christian apologists, but even if they were, so what.  Are you implying that books written by Christians are somehow not valid because they were written by Christians.  I'm sure an experienced, high level Wikipedian like yourself would never do that, as I'm sure you recognize that such an argument is logically invalid.  And I never said they were encyclopedias, and a concordance is "a list of words used in body of work, with their immediate contexts.", so I'm not sure even the Jerome Commentary fits this.


 * The New Jerome Biblical Commentary is basically the modern summary of Catholic bible scholarship. Is it invalid because Catholics wrote it?


 * An Introduction to the New Testament is by Raymond E. Brown, who is according to the wiki article on him "widely regarded as one of America's preeminent biblical scholars."


 * A Brief Commentary on the Gospel of Mark is a general analysis of the whole book by Kilgallen, who taught at Loyola and the Gregorian University in Rome.


 * The Complete Gospels is a chapter and verse analysis by the Jesus Seminar. Are they poor scholars and Christian Apologists?  If you think so, I disagree.


 * And so what if they don't use Metzger? I actually think Brown and the Commentary do cite his work, but I'll look that up later.  Is he the Biblical commentary guru for you or something?


 * I do divide chapter pages up, as almost all articles are divided up, but so what? Maybe that's the most noticable thing for you, but not for me.


 * I never said I defeated you in an argument, only that we fought over this last month after your Easter attack on these articles.


 * Since the very existence of Bible chapters seems to rub you the wrong way I doubt we'll ever come to an agreement on this, so please feel free to dispute these articles the correct way. Feel free to nominate these articles for merger or deletion, then we'll have a vote, and that will decide our little dispute.  Fair enough?  Take it easy.--Roy Brumback 11:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To call my comments irrelevancies is a violation of No Personal Attacks


 * Having Luke 24 as well as Resurrection of Jesus is content forking. It isn't really allowed. It is not disingenous to call it content forking, even by merging content from one to the other, because that is exactly what you are supposed to do with content forks - merge the notable content from the fork into the other article and then turn it into a redirect to that other article.


 * If you don't think we should have episode by episode on TV shows, then I'm sure I'll soon see you fighting to delete or merge all South Park or Simpsons articles if you are really so bugged by content forking.


 * One cannot fight to delete or merge all X, Y, Z, etc. articles because that is like trying to cure all the worlds problems at once. One should take things one step at a time. My interest is in the Biblical articles not the TV ones. Thats why I'm part of WikiProject Bible not WikiProject TV (or whatever).


 * Chapters were not created for "quick scholarly reference" but to make citation easier. Wikipedia is not a bank of citations.
 * Why would someone want information on Mark 1 as a whole? Thats highly disjointed thinking, its like someone trying to find information about page 196 of Return of the King, the whole of page 196, and only page 196. Its absurd - scholars never do this because extremely artificial divisions of the text have no actual academic value. People are extremely significantly more likely to want to look up information about the Gospel of Mark or about the Baptism of Jesus, or about the Temptation of Christ, or about the Twelve Apostles, but not the whole of Mark 1 on its own isolated from the equivalent parts of Matthew and John and with all these quite different episodes stuck together for no valid reason other than that that is how some mediaeval guy partitioned them.


 * Now, lets take "your" books. Christian apologetics is biased precisely because it is Christian apologetics. Now there is nothing wrong with that, but taking only the views of conservative Protestant and Catholic writers is really not very neutral whatsoever. And the Jesus Seminar, whom you seem to have taken very little content from, are still apologists, even if they are quite liberal ones - it wasn't a gathering of critical scholars but of critical scholars who had a pro-Christian bias (due in part to being Christian).


 * And Metzger is a highly important scholar. The fact that you don't include his point of view suggests that you arent interested in including truly critical analysis.


 * You divide chapter pages up. Now if chapters had merit on their own, then why do you divide the articles up into episode by episode blocks. You seem to be admitting that episode by episode is how they should be divided up, but then insisting that we bundle them together in completely artificial groupings that were invented in the middle ages. Its like taking all the Harry Potter articles and piling them together in to articles like Chamber of Secrets Chapter 1, Chamber of Secrets Chapter 2, Chamber of Secrets Chapter 3, ... . If you suggested that to the people over at Harry Potter you'd probably be laughed out of Wikipedia. So what makes you think it a good idea?


 * Now what seems interesting to me is that you seem unwilling to discuss this with the people in the wikiproject that is about how Wikipedia material on the Bible should be organised. If you check out that wikiproject, you'll see that the prevailing opinion is that chapter by chapter articles are considered an extremely inappropriate idea. Your unwillingness to adhere to the view of the people who actually set about organising the articles is noticeable.Clinkophonist 15:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Gospel Afd
Oh dear...:(. I'm very sorry. I wrote on the wrong side. My mistake, and I apologise if my actions caused distress or confusion to the parties involved.-- 陈 鼎  翔    贡献  Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Request small fix to article Olivet discourse
I am disambiguating the Power page. The article Olivet discourse contains a link to Power, and I think you will agree that the Power page will be of little use to someone trying to understand the article. I noticed you have made some recent contributions to this page, so I hope you will look at talk: Olivet discourse to see the details.

My reason for choosing the Power page to disambiguate is because I'm an electrical engineer; I thought I'd be well equipped to sort it out. It seems I was a bit optimistic. Best wishes. Gerry Ashton 04:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Verses of matthew
It appears that Rich Farmbrough has created blank (redirected) articles for all the verses of Matthew. While this isn't problematic in itself (though it seems pointless), Rich has also started wikilinking to redirects (which I thought was to be avoided in the first place) as opposed to using one of the bibleverse templates. Because this issue has come up in the past, I am announcing it to those who are concerned either for or against these moves. I'd like to hear anyones imput on this matter. Thanks!--Andrew c 20:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Clinkophonist 17:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Afd
Hi, I noticed you created a bunch of Afd listings about the same topic today. Do ya think they should be all in the same listing? -- D -Day I'm all ears 20:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

They are for different pages. Some people might have a different opinion about some of the listings than they have to others. Id prefer them to be kept separate for now, but if the first few votes seem to go the same way on all of them then they probably should be merged. Clinkophonist 20:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification for the AfD. It seems like the consensus is speedy delete, and I agree with that, so I'm not going to weigh in. However, what do you think of every single verse of Matthew being a redirect? How could we go about posting a bulk RfD for all of them, if that is the proper course of action?--Andrew c 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Gospel of Barnabas
you have edited a Matthew reference to generate a link to an on-line NIV. But the resulting text in the article is very messy. Is there a better way of presenting this?

.. and if there is, can you do the same for the other Bibe refs too? TomHennell 01:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Its quite late here, I'll take a look in the morning. But if you want to find out for yourself if this is possible in the meantime, take a look at Template talk:Bibleverse. Clinkophonist 02:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that two separate systems of bible refs were conflicting. I have tried to clean it up with a further edit, but there is still a deletion? flag. Perhaps when you have a moment you can do it properly 21:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

NAB & NSRV
have been added to the bible reference finder (and thus Template:Bibleverse). See http://www.ug.it.usyd.edu.au/~jnot4610/bibref.php. jnothman talk 04:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Clinkophonist 17:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoops! Sorry. I did it when I was quite tired. (Really NRSV is ungrammatical and NSRV should be expected except that it's given that name for historical reasons.) Oremus was down when I finally finished implementing it, so I couldn't test it. But the addition of "ae" is intentional. It comes with commentary, etc. jnothman talk 23:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was wondering about the ae. Thanks. Clinkophonist 23:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

re "forgery"
Well, it wasn't technically a forgery...I did actually make that comment, here. I have no idea why MeBee decided it needed to be cut and pasted [poorly] onto the talkpage for Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, but the only thing that really bothers me about it is that the way he did it makes me look like I can't figure out wiki markup :-p Thanks for the notif, and keep on your toes :-)  Cheers, Tom e rtalk  23:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's extremely odd behaviour. I haven't got as far as checking Gospel of the Hebrews on my watchlist yet. Clinkophonist 20:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Citing to the Bible
As a recent participant in the TfD dicussion on whether Bibleverse and Bibleref should be deleted, I wanted to make sure you were aware of the new discussion at Citing sources/Bible. The goal of these discussion is to resolve the concerns raised re GFDL, use of an external cite, etc. Additionally, this page should serve as a location for recording research about the different websites that provide online Bible information. Please edit the summary and join the discussion - thx Trödel  15:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Comfort, WOTM, LW, etc.
moved to Talk:The Way of the Master

Was it in a cross? subsection in historical Jesus
that it seems feasible but how get you that idea? please if you add a new fact cite your sources.-User:Atenea26 24 june 2006 ,18:35 (UTC)

From the article Crucifixion and Crucifixion. Clinkophonist 16:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

BSF topheavy notice appropriate?
Hi, I notice that you put a "topheavy" notice on BSF. I find a couple of issues with this... first, the template itself seems oriented to prolong and draw attention to conflict. Second, if you're going to do that, you should try to fix the article or at least note on the talk page what you think should be done about it. Personally, I don't find the BSF article in a particularly topheavy state. I do find it to be of dubious notability and justifiable for deletion. However, I have no illusions about the success prospects of an AfD. Under this assumption I and a few others have taken pains to keep it balanced, which is what I consider the article now to be (at least compared to the unencyclopedic travesty it had become last september ). One thing, however, that I've recently noticed is that the article had become laced with what I call contention-cruft, or remnants of heated contention that resulted in the article reading like one long debate. I found that to be un-Wikipedian and I reduced that concern as well. And Ken, for all his hostile and confrontational editing, has likewise pointed out statements that did not add much to the article and could not be adequately sourced to justify their existence. So in summary, would you state the concerns on the talk page and begin to address them, or remove the topheavy notice? Thanks. The Crow 21:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There are about 7 people in the support- section, and 2 in the anti-section. 77% pro and 22% against seems unbalanced to me, especially as the real world is more the opposite. Clinkophonist 17:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Feminist Christianity
Thanks for creating this article! But in the interest of WP's quality, in the future you should not write an article and then place a cleanup tag on it. That seems to portray: I'm going to write some stuff I know is messy but I'll let someone else fix it. Either write well the first time or don't write it. Of course if you were planning on cleaning it yourself later, you could just save a copy on your computer and wait until you finish before posting it online. Thanks! --Ephilei 23:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
I just want to thank you for telling me about the Wiki project Jesus. I added my name to the participants list because there is no 'join' place. But I appreciate your help. any time you want to help me more I would really appreciate on account of I don't know a lot of things or how to go about them. Shannon 00:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

wiki project Jesus
Hi, Clinkophonist, sorry to bother you again. I still don't understand what is happening in this project. There is no place to join and the whole thing is just confusing me. I'm quite new here and don't know how to go about a lot of things. Can you tell me what to do when you get a chance. Shannon 19:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your blanking of articles - Please stop
Please stop your blanking of these articles - you have not even come close to achieving consensus for this from what I have read on their talk pages and as such this is vandalism. Please consider this a first warning. I trust you will fix this and revert what you've done otherwise I will have no choice but to use a revert all edits function which would also revert any non-blanking edits done today. Thanks in advance - Gl e n 12:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Consensus was reached in march/april. See Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Bible. Clinkophonist 12:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

P.s. the revert function may not be used for edit disputes, and to do so is a violation of admin priviledges. Thanks in advance. Clinkophonist 12:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, Im not an admin so Im not abusing anything. Second of all, consensus was not achieved on the talk pages which is where you are required to discuss such changes (how many of our million registered users are members of that Wikiproject?) - in fact, looking at Talk:1 Corinthians 11 shows me that there seems to be anything but consensus. And this page clearly shows me that you have no consensus on 1 Corinthians 14 either. Once again, Please stop. - Gl e n 12:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The number of articles involved was large; the correct behaviour according to Wikipedia guidelines was to discuss things centrally, rather than scattered between articles. The centralised discussion was advertised centrally, meeting notification criteria, and the parties involved at the time were all notified.
 * If you are not an admin, you have no revert all edits function, and that would appear to be a malicious threat - such threats are not allowed, and an abuse of the right to edit in wikipedia. Clinkophonist 12:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All parties? I didn't know about this which is why I have been reverting. Please point me to the policy regarding the "advertise centrally" policy? And, please explain why your prior attempts to blank these articles been reverted? Finally, for your information, as a VandalProof moderator I do have a revert all edits function. In fact, it requires the press of one button. I would ask you to AGF in the future thank you. - Gl e n 13:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * VandalProof moderator is not an official Wikipedia position, and carries with it no Wikipedia authority whatsoever. Using a "revert all edits" button in an external application constitutes running a bot, for which you need official permission - Bots. And I remind you that threatening to revert all of someone's edits constitutes making a malicious threat, which would result in you being blocked by administrators for violation of Wikipedia policies that stipulate that malicious threats may not be made. Clinkophonist 14:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not claimed to hold any "position" of any kind, nor any "authority". I would ask you to please read the bots policy again because your claim is false. And I mentioned (not threatened) using the revert all edits because of the enormous extent of the damage you've caused today alone - I've corrected 14 articles of which you blanked in the last hour alone - and in every one that I have checked there has been no discussion about deletion nor redirecting. I would remind you to do as you have done here to nominate each one for deletion before doing this again. I notice you did not reply to my earlier questions: Please point me to the policy regarding the "advertise centrally" policy? And, please explain why your prior attempts to blank these articles been reverted if concensus has been achieved? Thank you once again - Gl e n 14:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Getting a piece of code ("vandalproof") to perform a task on a large number of articles ("reverting all edits") constitutes running a bot, and running a bot without permission is not permitted - Bots. I remind you that mentioning that you will revert all of someone's edits unless they perform or do not perform something constitutes a malicious threat, whether you characterise it as "mentioning" or not. The central advertising thing can be seen at Centralized discussion. 1 Corinthians 13 was nominated because it was not merged, and therefore not covered by the previous centralised discussion. I would remind you that ordering editors to do things is not permitted, and threatening them will result in you being blocked. Clinkophonist 15:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

the Jesus project
Hi, Clinkophonist. Thanks for your note on my page. I really appreciate your getting back to me. I think that project is closed now. I just went there and it appears to be not happening now. I hope everything is okay with you. If you ever need any help or back up from me, please let me know. peace. Sha nnon duck talk  14:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think most of the participants moved to WikiProject Christianity. Clinkophonist 15:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Mark 16
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. - Gl e n 15:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Check that edit again, and this time read the edit summary. Clinkophonist 15:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)