User talk:Codex Sinaiticus/'06archive

My African Map
Well my map is from 1976, and I erased most of the Spanish titles. I will keep it off because of its inaccurate portrayals.--King of the Dancehall 04:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Myth again
Sorry, i am not trying to suppress it. More trying to figure out where it belongs. I should have kept it on the talk page. What I was wondering was why when adding the link you deleted out the rest of the definitions? I'm sorry if you have been over this ad nauseum but as a new comer I'm still trying to figure out the details. This is quite a complex argument with respect to resolution. David D. (Talk) 01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Codex: I left a message on DreamGuy's talk page, and figured I'd do the same for you...the "Mythology" debate won't bear much fruit unless we all watch our language. Accusations and name calling aren't good for anyone.  I really think you'd get further without the "lies" language, even if you do feel DreamGuy is lying, and even if he mistreats you or misrepresents your position.  You're a better editor than I am, and probably know WP:CIV and WP:NPA better than I do.  I just thought I'd offer this friendly reminder; hopefully, we'll all reach a compromise.  Thanks...KHM03 16:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Codex, i just sent you an e-mail through wikipedia with the text from the 2003 and 1989 editions. David D. (Talk) 04:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Codex, I reverted your change to Myth not because I disagree with it, but because it is secondary to the larger issue of whether the "this usage arose from the labelling of religious beliefs" language is either accurate or inappropriate. See Talk:Myth for details, and please join the conversation there. Cheers. JHCC (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:EUROPEmod2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:EUROPEmod2.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. -- Longhair 11:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Babylon and User:Zmmz
Should I even bother over there, or am I just wasting my time? -Ben 22:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Zmmz. But - please be cautious as to your 3RR state. William M. Connolley 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC).

CS, if you continue to edit Babylon as you wish, without presenting any legitimate arguments and references, and without a general consensus--I WILL report you for your 3rr violations, and whatever else I can.Zmmz 02:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

83.19.205.78 15:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)The picture on Roma People:

There are 3 rules on Wikipedia.

1 verify. The picture was not verified.

2 neutral pov. One editor on Roma said the article was 'for the Roma'. That's not what Wikipedia is for.

3 no original research. Saying 'In my experience' is original research.

If you put something in that breaks one of these rules, YOU are the vandal.

Original sin
Not in a spirit of opposition, but simply wanting to know the facts, I would like to ask you to indicate the verifiable source for your statement about original sin in the Oriental Orthodox Churches. It seems to be contradicted by an Armenian website, which states that the Mother of God "was cleansed of all sin (original sin) as she was the vessel in which God manifest was to be incarnated". Lima 08:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

A week has passed without a source being quoted. I have therefore, at least provisionally, replaced your statement in the Original Sin article. Lima 05:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

''It seems you are on some kind of busy-body agenda to go around to every Church or religion in the world like you are the authority, and ascribe Original Sin to them. DO NOT DO THIS. Stick to your own beliefs. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)''

Amasaginallehu - Thank you for your courtesy. Lima 13:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

''Abro yisTen. If you have figured out how to say 'Amesseginallehu, you might also perceive that no one in the Armenian Evangelical Church can set doctrine for any Oriental Orthodox Church outside of Armenia at any rate, so I was a little taken aback when after a week you told me "time's up, I'm reinserting what I think your doctrine is for you!" I apologize if I sounded brusque, but it just looks like you are coming out of nowhere, like someone had specially appointed you to point out what you think other churches doctrines are or what you think they should be... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC).''

You seem to be under a misapprehension about the New York-based Armenian Church diocese whose website I quoted. It is part of the Armenian Church headed by His Holiness Karekin II, Armenian Apostolic Church, Catholicosate of All Armenians, and is listed as such on page 31 of the 2005 edition of Orthodoxia (Ostkirchliches Institut, Regensburg). The content of the website should be enough to show it is not of the Evangelical/Protestant variety. You will have seen that I have not reverted your revert, and have not raised the question publicly on the Original Sin talk page. I prefer to leave it to you to restore to the Original Sin page the account of what the Armenian Apostolic Church, which, as you know perfectly well, is one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, actually teaches, not what someone thinks it should teach. Perhaps you will also give a source for your own statement about the teaching of one or more of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches. I do not wish to remove your statement from the page as long as there is some hope that it can be shown to be verifiable, as required on Wikipedia. (Some day, I must ask you to be good enough to explain to me, preferably with International Phonetic Alphabet characters, what exactly are the seven Gi'iz and Amharic vowels: I believe I was wrong in supposing that the vowel in "Gi'iz" was the Slavic /y/ or the Turkish /ı/. That's enough ውይይት - with more of the vowel that I mistook - for now.) Lima 15:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It is disappointing that you have not yet restored the sourced account of Armenian teaching. Lima 14:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

''When I wrote "Armenian Evangelical" above, I meant to say "Armenian Apostolic". My point remains, that noone in that church sets the doctrines for the Ethiopian, or any other Oriental Church. So if you want to write that someone in the Armenian Church believes in Original sin, make sure you write exactly that, and do not try to ascribe this view to the others or make them "guilty by association". Thanks. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)''

Thank you for your permission to put sourced information in the Original Sin article. Lima 20:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam and Eve
Codex, I am getting rather tired of your nonsense on the A&E page. Your comment that it is disputed that a parallel was identified is utterly absurd. You actually wish to dispute the parallel itself. Thus, you add-on is irrelevant, and wrong.

As for the nonense that the Hebrew was mistranslated, then I would have to say that you must be the only person who understands Hebrew, because every Bible I've looked at in the 12 languages I can read translates the Hebrew the same way: the timing of the creation of plants, Adam, and animals in Genesis 2 is identical in all of them.

The elimination of half of the second paragraph in "Christianity" makes absolutely no sense. It is sourced, unobjectionable, accurate and NPOV.

I would like to thank you for this note, however, as it is a good point: For example, the serpent is generally equated with Satan, although this is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Jim62sch 18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're totally misunderstanding. Of course it's not disputed that a parallel is identified.  It's the documentary hypothesis that is disputed.  It seems like you really don't want it to be mentioned that the Documentary hypothesis is disputed, and want it to appear incontrovertible.  All I'm doing is pointing out that's not the case for NPOV. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

CE and AD...
You have reverted the dates 3 times - contrary to Wiki rules - I am therefore suggesting that you should stop or risk suspension. There is no reason why the article should be an "AD article" as you put it - AD is outdated and irrelevant though many find it\d |"christian" slant offensive. Please stop reverting without discussion and please stop wanting to install a POV date system. Robsteadman 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman, the manual of style suggests that both are acceptable, and tradition on the wiki is to leave dates in a particular format alone. In other words, if it is in style A, don't change it to style B (and vice versa). --Improv 17:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the Wiki manual of style needs to be updated? AD is not acceptable as it suggests a POV Robsteadman 17:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, you alone cannot overturn the established consensus that was hashed out by numerous editors, in accordance with your own pov notions of what is or is not "acceptable". Now if you don't mind, enough pages have been filled up already with this non debate; please do not fill mine with it any further. Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's your 4th revert. So much for Wiki policy! It is not a non-debate - it is important - AD is offensive and POV it bnreaks Wiki beutrality which is far more important than keeping a status quo. You have broken the 3RR rule and should be blocked - how do we get an admin to do this? Robsteadman 19:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Improv is an admin... Why don't you ask him? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman, this has been hashed out a million times before, and sadly will probably continue to be hashed out a million times in the future. To some people, CE/BCE is seen as offensive, and these things don't even break down cleanly by religious affiliation. People have tried to change this, and nothing has ever come of it. For a recent attempt, see Eras. Unless the policy changes (and I honestly don't think it will anytime soon), please respect the current way things are done, which I have described above. There are some circumstances where, for the good of the community, rules are broken, but those cases always involve a pressing social good -- CE versus AD is not at all similar, and people who prefer one or the other can learn to deal with not controlling the language of all the discussions they're in. I believe you will find great frustration if you attempt to change the policy/guide (although you may surprise me), and even greater frustration if you attempt to press forward without changing the policy/guide. --Improv 20:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If AD is used it belittles the whole neutrality of Wikipedia. AD is POV and should not be used unless you are trying to be offensive to other "faiths" and non-believers. It is only a guideline and needs to be addressed. Wikipedia should use CE throughout. Robsteadman 12:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to address it, go take your case up there then. Until and unless you manage to change things there, don't ignore the way we do things on Wikipedia. I can just about guarantee that there are enough people who care about the issue in various ways but have so far accepted the current comprimise that you will do one of two things: either be immediately reverted (and possibly eventually be blocked from all editing) or stir up a major disruption on Wikipedia. Neither of these will get you your way on this issue. --Improv 18:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

A shame that you cannot see the bias, offence and POV that AD carries with it. Robsteadman 16:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You have said a number of times in the Historicity of Jesus article (in edit summaries) that it is "Wikipedia policy" to use AD and BC, rather than CE and BCE. Well, according to Manual of Style (dates and numbers) either is acceptable, as long as we are consistent within the article. It should also be noted that the second paragraph states clearly that that page is just a guideline, not a strict policy, pointing out that


 * clear, informative and unbiased [my emphasis] writing is always more important than presentation and formatting.

The fact that so many Wikipedians have expressed disagreement over that with you using nothing but "Wikipedia policy", as you call it, as a defence, shows that the current format does not come off as unbiased or neutral. You yourself have said that you are more concerned with preserving your Christian system in Wikipedia than with being "politically correct".

elvenscout742 18:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I most certainly never said any such thing. Please do not put any words in my mouth that I never said, if you cannot cite them with a link.  I only stated that Wikipedia policy allows both systems to be used and does not favor one or the other, which is correct.  I also stated that Wikipedia advises editors not to start edit wars over the question, but to leave each article in the era format it started out in, which is also correct.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * is where you made the remark to which I am referring. You clearly advocated old-fashioned, religiously non-neutral terminology in schoolbooks, and hinted at wanting to preserve the link between church and state. We don't need that kind of POV on Wikipedia. The "policy" to which you are referring is not, as I said, a strict policy, but more of a general guideline, and specifically notes that neutrality is far more important than the type of formatting mentioned. The fact that so many people have tried to change things because they took offence (or believe others would take offence) shows that the way you want it is not neutral. If you want to contribute to the Catholic Encyclopedia go right ahead, but Wikipedia is at least meant to have a universal appeal, and the only way this can be achieved is religious neutrality. (By the way, I find it offensive when people are not objective, and bring either their own or my religion into a discussion of an academic article.) elvenscout742 21:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, that is not what my post you cited says at all. It says exactly what it says; it is a post I made right here on my very own talk page, back when I had been a wikipedian for about 2 weeks.  It says not one word for or against preserving the link between any Church and any state.  Were you offended because I used the word "Marxist"?  If you want to resurrect old grievances over this issue, I suggest you try WP:ERAS and all 12 of their associated talk / vote / archive pages, and have a blast.  You'll find a raging controversy there that never ends, roughly divided 50-50 between people who think such as yourself, and more reasonable types that don't want you guys foisting BCE on an unwilling world.  Please don't turn my talk page into yet another battleground for this; I have no problem with standing policy, have better things to write,  and don't want to hear about it unless it changes.  Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You said that the reason you were offended by the terminology was not because you associate it with an irrational and inconvenient movement (which I could have understood), but because you are disturbed by "minimalist"s trying to downplay the supreme authority of your allegedly more-valid-than-others ideology in academic contexts. Wikipedia is an academic context. It is also not an exercise in democracy (I couldn't be bothered providing a link to that well-known page, especially if you're just blindly going to put your whole link, to my inconvenience, in upper case), and so what the (predominantly Western, Christian, biased) "community" has to say on the matter shouldn't carry any weight. Nothing in particular in that post offended me, but I was just pointing it out - the fact that I generally try not to bring the fact that I personally take offence to things here, when you have a tendency to argue things based on the fact that you feel your religion is insulted by the use of neutral language, and others shouldn't have the right to be offended by your forcing a Christian slant on things. As a rule, I have seen Christians do this a lot more than any others - only on one occasion since I got here more than a year ago has a non-Christian mentioned their religious beliefs in a discussion with me, and then it was only to point out that they understand the Hindu POV from a subjective stance. Notice the way not once in this argument or others of its nature have I brought my own religions into the equation? By the way, I was raised as a Roman Catholic, and if anything would have a very strong Christian bias; but I don't, and if I did I would keep it in check. elvenscout742 22:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, all that "allegedly more valid than others" stuff is your words, coming off your keyboard, not mine. I have never once said anything remotely resembling that on any page.  I'm still not sure if you are proposing a specific change to a specific article, or if you came here just to argue in general.  If all you want is an quarrel for quarrel's sake, like I said, try WP:ERA and leave my poor page alone!  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of bias
Codex, twice now in edit summaries you have accused Jim62sch of having a bias, and in one of those you claimed he did not believe in religious freedom. I have two questions. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) To what are you referring, please?
 * 2) Do you think an editor can have personal bias, and yet edit in an unbiased way?


 * There are people out there whose stated goal is to destroy religion. Sure, at the same time they will say it isn't true, but all you have to do is look at North Korea, or look at the way Albania used to be, to see what the world they "imagine" with "no religion" is like.  The fact that there was no religious freedom in these countries, proves that some people are the enemy of religious freedom. There have been enemies of religious freedom at every time in history, and now today in 2006 is no exception.  To answer your second question, when an editor states such a "personal bias" with these userboxes, I think it is much harder for him to edit religion articles in an unbiased way, much harder for me to trust that they are indeed neutral; and the nature of the edits, that are not neutral, but pushing one unique POV and suppressing others, proves my point.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you stating that the User lennonist, which includes a quote from John Lennon's song Imagine is a statement of opposition to freedom of religion? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be one thing if he just made a couple of minor edits, but he and others go from article to article on Anrahamic religion, rewrite the whole thing from their hypothesis, and expect to maintain it that way permanently as if authoritative. Sorry, but the memories of Communist countries are too fresh in the human memory to allow that to happen without expecting some resistance. People believe what they want, not what they're told to believe. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Please answer the question. You have stated in edit summaries "THis guy openly admits on his homepage his agenda is hostility to freedom of religious belief" and "your biased pov agenda is quite plain from your user-box". Are you stating that the User lennonist, which includes a quote from John Lennon's song Imagine is a statement of opposition to freedom of religion? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The sentiment is fairly obvious (and not too subtle) no matter who stated it.   But reading the article linked from the template just now, it appears that Lennon himself stated the song was, quote,  "anti-religious".  And that is the one single most anti-religious lyric in the entire song (yes, I've heard it), that anti-religious wikipedians use as a flag of their anti-religiousity. But while other pov boxes get deleted, this one has the appearance of being in good graces.  Which is actually good, because it lets us see who the anti-religious editors are. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You have no such userbox, but we've edited the same articles a few times, and if I recall correctly you are a monotheist of one of the Abrahamic religions - if I am remembering incorrectly, or if you have never stated nor implied your religious beliefs, apologies. However, turning the question around - do you consider it possible for a follower of a religion to edit in a NPOV manner? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's possible for anyone to edit in a NPOV manner. Whether they follow a religion, or do not.  Sometimes people have to work at it.  It basically means summarising all the widely held views, whether you personally agree with them or not, not cutting any of them out, and writing in language that does not appear to take any side, especially the more disputed ones.  But looking at the actual edits to see if they really are NPOV, or are pushing one pov, is a different matter. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. With this in mind, I request that you are a bit more careful with your edit summaries, addressing the merits of the edits not the percieved bias of the editor. thanks -
 * On an unrelated topic, what font or setting must I have in order to view your sig as anything other than empty boxes? thanks again - KillerChihuahua?!? 16:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay then, but I still think the issue partly arises from editors who proclaim their own biases all too plainly, putting a strain on "good faith"... You must have GF Zemen true type, or something comparable, in your computer font folder to see the sig. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, I finally got the font installed, and you are no longer little boxes. Thanks! On the other subject, it can be trying when users parade their bias, but OTOH surely it is better not to inflame the issue, or presume bias exists on anything short of very blatant proclamation of bias by the editor in question. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Article God
Codex, is this really what you mean to say? "It has also been said...that the origin of the the word God comes from the Persian Language..." I.e., the English word God is derived from Persian? I have a feeling that what you really meant was that the Persian word khoda has the same derivation as the English word god (with or without a capital), but it's not what your sentence says. ((It's 6am and I'm sitting in the cafe at Kuala Lumpur airport with nothing better to do than write nit-picking comments on people's Wiki entries. Sorry. I have four more hours to wait for my connecting flight... Oh Khoda!) PiCo 22:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see now. That section needs a clean-up. The article as a whole needs to be better focussed - needs to decide just what it wants to be about. Maybe one article on the etymology of the word(s) for god in IE languages (and others if anyone feels inclined), a separate article about differing theological concepts (monotheism, etc etc).I think Wiki tends to breed unnecessary articles. Kuala Lumpur is in Malaysia. There's a word in the Philippines for God, Bahala, pre-dates Spanish, no idea where it comes from. Cheers PiCo 00:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Lion of Judah
Current convention is not to use honorific prefixes. There's a manual of style for biographies at WP:MOSBIO. --Ian Pitchford 15:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you accept normal discussion?
Sometimes it's a good idea to listen what other people say. If you disagree, you can provide your own arguments. But dealing with articles, related to Turkish issues, you seemed to be fully convinced with Turkish propaganda. It is typical for people who are not well- educated. Are you one of those? Test56 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have had differences on Wikipedia too, very recently
Sometimes it is frustrating when you lose. I have lost a battle recently over the inclusion of Martin Luther in the "Antisemitic people" category. I don't think that he was an "antisemitic person" but, evidently, there is a large body of contemporary authors both Christian and Jewish, who think he was. I was on the verge of an edit war, but I guess I can live with it. I'm not happy about it, but perhaps I can do more to disseminate information about Luther's legacy by compromising about it. I can see how people get tired of "inclusive language", etc., but I guess it is part of living in a diverse world. The best advice is never to feel threatened by someone else, even if they think differently from yourself. I have learned that it keeps my blood pressure in check. Thanks for your message. --Drboisclair 20:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing

 * 1) One edit, with no-one reverting (except you now) doesn't make an edit war.
 * 2) You reverted all my edits, not just the ones related to dating systems.
 * 3) The article used a mixture of dating systems, and I made it consistent. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The only person "date-warring" is you. I repeat, I made the article consistent. If you think that I should have made it consistent in the other directio, raise the issue for discussion at the Talk page &mdash; don't just revert. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you check my edit rather more carefully. Note that, unlike you, I have taken this issue to the Talk page, where it should be discussed. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Monatnism and AD
Hello. It seems you are not understanding the reason behind my removal of AD from the text in Montantism article. I have nothing against AD/BC, and infact I exclusively use them in my articles. The "problem" is that all the years and centuries in the article are AD, so there is no need to specificate them. That's why I marked my edits as "rm redundant AD". Will you remove it?--Panairjdde 11:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you ignoring my comment and keepeing on reverting? You do not own the article, you are obliged to discuss the points you do not like, not just reverting them. Answer my remark.--Panairjdde 09:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Date warring over multiple articles
Please stop edit warring. Warring over such trivialmatter is not only ridiculous, but harmful to the encyclopedia. Both you and Panairjdde have been uncivil in this. I'd advise you to stop thewarrng at least until the matter can be settled through discussion. Maybe mediation would be a good idea? Circeus 22:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

dating and the MoS
In an edit summary for the Epistle of Jude, you said to me '' But 1) AD is explicitly allowed, and 2) Removing it (a la color / colour) is explicitly DISallowed. Stop it.'' And I feel that we have a completely different understanding of the Manual of Style (dates and numbers) guidelines. What is specifically DIS allowed is: When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. The two styles they are talking about are CE vs. AD. I did not change the AD to CE, so I did not break any policy. In fact, I followed the guideline stated on the same page: Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Anno Domini/Common Era, but when events span the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range. Let me repeat that "NORMALLY you should use PLAIN NUMBERS for YEARS... BUT when events SPAN the start of the Anno Domini/Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range". This number (70) does not SPAN the start of AD/CE, so I used a plain number. The only place AD or CE is to be used is in ranges of dates. I don't see how I am interpreting this guideline incorrectly, and I do not see how my edits are harmful or against policy. I understand that a few editors feel that dates in the single, double, and somtimes tripple digits are confusing to users. However, this concern has not entered the guideline yet. I feel that getting rid of both AD and CE is helpful because it avoids edit warring regarding which format to use in articles. The guideline says it isn't necessary, and wikilinking the year makes it clear for the confused users. So until the guideline is changed, I wish you'd respect current policy and stop reverting my edits that are per the guidelines. Thank you.--Andrew c 15:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

AD in dates
Hi, you made an edit to Montanism in which you added "AD" after "2nd century". You quoted the style guide saying this is appropriate, however as I stated on Talk:Montanism the style guide appears to say the exact opposite (that years in AD should omit the "AD"). Can you explain what your reasoning is for this edit? Thanks. Fagstein 07:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning has been explained by myself and others ad infinitum, so many times that I am a bit sick of being asked to explain it yet again. It's hard to believe you have missed all of the repeated explanation that has been going on, and that this isn't a joke. Basically, your interpretation of MOS, that AD should always be omitted, is far too narrow; the common sense intent is clearly to state that both AD and CE are equally "acceptable", and that going around articles switching from one accepted style to another, like Panairjdde did by starting all this, is unacceptable. This all started at Montanism, where he had no contribution to the article myself and other editors have authored whatsoever, other than to drop in and summarily inform that AD was "not allowed", which it most certainly is, and it's normal English writing to use it in this case. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 08:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you point to some centralized discussion that I've missed on this issue? Talk:Montanism appeared to resolve it. As much as your idea of common sense is important, it still contradicts the style guide. I might suggest having that changed before imposing your common sense on articles without discussing them on Talk pages. Thanks. Fagstein 19:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

RFM
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 Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), 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.

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC).

freeewill
Hello CS please follow protocal and discuss the edits of the freewill article on the talkpage. Rather then cause a revert war. Thanks LoveMonkey 03:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and WP:3RR
Please take note that you are in violation of WP:3RR on the Christianity article. It would be wise to revert yourself in order to avoid a potential block. — Aiden 17:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

3RR Block
You have been blocked for breaking the Three revert rule on Christianity. You commited four or more reverts on that article within a period of around twenty four hours. This block is not a reflection on those edits themselves, but on the pattern of edits. The three revert rule is designed to stop such edit wars. Please continue to discuss matters on the Talk:Christianity page when you return. --Robdurbar 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Christianity
Why did you revert my comment? A.J.A. 04:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

comment
I'm not a native speaker in English, what i mean is that if there exits a probability, this means no certainty (no definite answer). Sometimes i have a difficulty of expressing myself cause of the language barrier. Is there a logical problem in English with that sentence apart from i wrote here. e104421


 * Hi, Not only there exist irrelevent and meaningless statements in the wikipedia articles, but also POV arguments. Especially, the linguistics and history related articles does not reflect objective scientific information. Everbody tries to put their own arguments. When you google, wikipedia comes the first. If the article is disputed, this causes misleading, unless the reader is curious to search the other sources. I wonder whether it is possible to make the articles both neutral and comprehensive in the future. 7 September 2006 (UTC) 14:10 e104421

3RR warning
You've reverted me 3 times now, and I have reverted you 3 times. Both of us are in danger of breaching WP:3RR. No more reverts for 24 hours please.

Really, why don't you just fix the tense and add a section on contemporary travelling? Why are you intent on restoring the irrelevant material about NZ?

You can reply on the article talk page, which I have watchlisted, this is just a warning about 3RR. --kingboyk 12:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mi'kmaq language
Codex, you've broken 3RR at Mi'kmaq language. Please don't do it again, and don't insult other users. Why don't you just explain your opinion at the talk page? You could clear this up simply by providing sources for your assertions about the correct spelling.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you reverted for a 5th time, still without citing a reference, so I reported it at WP:AN/3RR.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Roman Religion and Christianity
Hi, I beg to disagree with your perception of the version in state religion as a pov. Not true. If you kindly read the text of the edict of toleration of 311 and 313, then you will understand better and a much wider multi-faceted approach. You should treat this matter in a multi-variable context. Furthermore: Dr mindbender 04:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Pls. bear in mind the background history of the Roman empire from the time Diocletian assumed the office of emperor. The principate was transformed into the dominate.
 * 2) Socio-economic factors during the reign of Diocletian. Diocletian was able to stabilize the currency and the Roman economy after the relative debasing of the currency and high inflation. Although stabilized, the realities of the time continued until the reign of Constantine and even later.
 * 3) Pls. take note of the history of the struggle for power which finally concluded in Constantine being the sole emperor.
 * 4) Take note that the emperors were also the pontifex maximus of the Roman state cult. He is the highest religious officer of the empire as well as the manifestation of imperium and potestas of the state. As pontifex maximus, his duty was primarily devoted to maintaining the "peace of the gods". Kindly read on ancient Roman religion and offices.
 * 5) Constantine was an astute politician. Imagine him as the president of the United States. Factors affecting his decisions are more practical - military, strategic, political stability, economics, and maybe religion (because Romans are known to do "forum shopping" from various deities popular at the time).
 * 6) Christianity was indeed growing. During the period, worship of the old gods were in decline vis-a-vis eastern cults and religions. The origins of the decline of the classic pantheon are much deeper and began much earlier.
 * 7) I can go on, but the point is: pls. don't look at the religious aspect of it only - otherwise, you lose a lot of context.

Armageddon
I was just wondering if there was some reason why you revert all my edits. I'm not deleting any information, so I don't understand your edit summaries. You even reverted the John of Patmos image at one point, so the issue doesn't seem to relate to content.Kauffner 05:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)