User talk:EGMichaels

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on 04:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.


 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  02:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The Judaism Newsletter
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique [ approves | this | message  ] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  21:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Anchor Bible
Hi EG

You added a mention of the Anchor Bible to English translations of the Bible. As far as I have been able to determine only one volume of this translation exists (Genesis), which makes it not very relevant compared with the many hundreds of complete translations, and probably not worth a mention in our article. If I have mistaken the translation for something else, please can you give more information about it? Thanks. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

LDS
Why do you believe the LDS are not restorationist? How does the inclusion of a New Revelation change the fact that they believe they are restoring Christianity to how Christ meant it to be, pre some great apostasy. Gavin (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I accept your argument, yet I still feel that they ARE restorationist in that they are attempting to restore the original gospel. Including the fact that to do this they use additional revelation does seem to have a tinge of POV though. The sentence would have to be very matter of fact and not include the additional revelation thing as a form of rebuttal of their claimed restorationist status. Perhaps like: "the Later Day Saint Movement is a Christian Restorationist sect formed in the United States by Joseph Smith who claimed that through access to additional revelation he had formed the Christian Church as Jesus of Nazareth had intended it to be, prior to a great apostasy which allegedly occurred sometime after the Apostolic age." Gavin (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We can all get a little frustrated on articles sometimes, it happens to us all! Your arguments are valid and there is no reason not to include the LDS use of additional revelation, provided it isn't done in an attempt to discredit their restorationist methods- which clearly is not what you want either. Gavin (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

source deletion
Thanks for the heads up about the deleted refs. I have asked the individual to explain themselves.Deadtotruth (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation myth
(mythologizers only, please)

Regarding, not a problem. I kind of lost track with what happened in the surrounding threads but whether you support or oppose the current title you should register your opinion in the requested move thread. If nothing else to encourage others to stick to one thread. Cheers, Ben (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * along those lines might I suggest you self edit and just cut/paste your edit into the requested move section and just remove the other section all together. There's no need for any more comment on that section and your points are more apt to be seen on the main discussion thread IMO.  Thanks Nefariousski (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the word "myth" and how it should be used in wikipedia
Please read this section on the right way and the wrong way to use the word "myth" in Wiki articles. We shouldn't use the word to imply a falsehood; we should only use it in the formal sense of a story of a culture or religion of which the truth is indeterminable. Whether or not Cush thinks the story false or not is his own opinion, and everyone has one. But the article Genesis creation myth does use the word in the proper scholarly manner as our guidelines advise. Auntie E. (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Needed Consensus on the Genesis creation myth page
(non-mythologizers only, please)

Being a latecomer to the article, I'm unclear exactly who is committed to the article and what they are committed to. I've heard a good deal from those in favor of the "myth" title, but not so much from those opposed. Eactly WHAT would be needed for a consensus title before you would be comfortable making improvements to the article? Please let me know here. Thanks.EGMichaels (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For me, the word "myth" is an absolute POV no-no. The fact that other pages include it is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. The fact that scholars who share the POV use the POV term is also unpersuasive. I've given up contributing there, as there's too much shouting down by the "everyone who disagrees with me is a mad Creationist" POV pushers. Frankly, the process has been a sham. What is needed is a well publicised RfC, with relevant WikiProjects invited to participate. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Genesis creation myth" is not an article, it's one of Wikipedia's most famous propaganda pieces, that is dominated by a few editors with a strong POV to push. Wikipedia sure isn't a democracy, in fact it looks more like an oligarchy since members of this cadre have repeatedly stated that any proportion of editors opposing them would make no difference to them imposing their philosophy.  Obviously I would be confortable with any of the proposed alternatives since "myth" has a lengthy documented history of being applied by various governments as a polemical attack word, particularly by Marxists, against ideas they wish to suppress, or wish would suddenly go way.  But rather than accomplish this on wikipedia, it just gets a lot of people's blood boiling, which must be their intent since it gives them so much obvious satisfaction.  It's a pity wikipedia had to be used for something so far from its intended purpose and stated goals.  But they will eventually have to come to terms with the fact that they must always share wikipedia with people of all stripes, and can never impose some artificial unity of pov that only exists in their own minds. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks you two. I'm hoping that we can have enough clarity here to figure out what each side wants.  The "myth" side has made itself clear (and is certainly welcome on my talk page as well -- in their own section).  My biggest concern is that the squelching of discussion only creates a false sense of consensus.  I really have no way of knowing what everyone wants if one "side" is gagging the other.  I'm thinking that the behavior is more concerning than the title itself.  This is really not the way to collaborate, and it's sad that it's been going on.  But only concerned editors like yourself can stop it -- and only if there is a consensus of what is needed.  Hopefully we'll hear from a few other folks here soon.  I've posted notes for a number of other people, and let Ben know I was researching what people needed.EGMichaels (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The promotion of discussion through WikiProjects (and elsewhere maybe, VP? Signpost?) will be essential to discovering true consensus. Otherwise, all you get is the same few people with a watchlist listing recycling their opinions. --Dweller (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure what the best way to proceed is. Right now I'm just trying to find out what the interest is.  I'm only seeing one side presented in the article, and if there isn't very much interest here on my talk page (I posted a note to all those who supported the title change) then this is as far as it goes.  But if I hear froma few more folks, if there is some kind of consensus, and if we do agree that one side has been squelched, then there will be another step.  As I said, right now I'm trying trying to find out what the heck is going on.  But neither side should squelch the other.  Wikipedia is about people working together, not being stepped on.EGMichaels (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I've supported "Genesis creation story" on the page, which actually has far more academic ghits than "myth" (see Dab's stats), and is neutral. There are other possibilities. "Myth" here is POV and provocative. Just to be clear, I'm entirely sure myself the Genesis story is not "factual", but see no need to use the title to proclaim this. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, I would not object at all to the use of "creation myth" elsewhere in the first para, etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. From what I can tell, the "myth" side seems to be insisting that "myth" just means "story" in some scholarly sense -- and yet refuses to exchange "myth" for this supposed synonym.  Generally, if you are dead set against using a synonym, then you do NOT really regard it as a synonym.  "Story" seems neutral.  "Account" seems neutral.  Even "account" is in the first sentence!  Instead of "the Genesis myth is an account that" why not just say, "the Genesis account says that..."?  Why not?  Because "myth" is really NOT intended to mean "account."  I'll go on the record (again) and say that "myth" doesn't personally bother me at all.  But it does concern me as a Wikipedia editor.  We should make our articles accessible to other editors and readers alike.  While there is certainly a need to present the scholastic views of this account as "myth", it is inappropriate to make the entire article into that one detail.EGMichaels (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with every thing written above, i do think that the proper way would be "creation according to genesis." its neutral as can be. I would say the way to proceed would be to also see about other articles that use "creation myth" and try and reword it in other titles. I think the intro looks good now, however the title is complete POV. BTW has anyone noticed that most of those who was POV pushing and harassing those who they disagreed with. Labeled themselves atheists in their user boxes? Then to have the nerve to tell us we "religionist" are pushing an agenda? Academic term or not it is pure POV in the title. Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the overall best title is "Genesis creation story." I think almost as good is "Genesis chapters one and two." "Story" is the most natural word to be used in that place. By the way I have no "personal" interest in any of this. I am not in the least bit "personally offended." "Genesis creation myth" is commentary. "Story" replaces "commentary" with normal, run-of-the-mill language. Bus stop (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Use of the term "myth" in the title passes judgement on the content. If this is not resolved, the title needs to be tagged for NPOV problems. Religious material should be treated fairly and openly, even those who do not fully support that view. Grantmidnight (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur with most statements above. The term "myth" should not be in the title due to the connotations it suggests (falshood, etc.) I still think "Creation according to Genesis" is completely neutral, whether one believes that Genesis is fact, fiction, allegory, or myth, it is completely accurate and indicates no preference as to validity. If the first sentence is "The account of Creation according to Genesis is the description of the supernatural occurrences surrounding the creation of the world, also referreed to as a creation or cosmogonic myth. The account is contained in the first two chapters of Genesis…" -- Avi (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Avi. I'll quote your positions in the lists below.EGMichaels (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to come in late. First and foremost, I want to thank User talk:EGMichaels for your very significant and bold  contributions to this fray. You are very articulate as a writer, have been more than generous with your time and energies, and keep your cool  very well (far better than this writer). You have persevered in the face of abasement as well as courtesy. As you probably have observed, there is a core of editors who seem irrevocably  committed to all they can do to emphasize  the phrase "Creation myth." I was very comfortable with the previous title, "Creation according to Genesis," but very uncomfortable with  their insistence on putting the phrase "creation myth" in the very first  sentence like this: "Creation  according to Genesis, a  creation myth found in Genesis 1 and 2...." I argued for keeping the title the same, but not introducing "creation myth" until the second  paragraph. More than once I edited it that way, and received not only immediate reversion but crude, sarcastic comments from some strident  myth-ers.

So in answer to your question, the previous paragraph sums up  what I believe would  be needed for a consensus title before I would be  comfortable making  improvements to the article. However, there's more than title.

I'm fully cognizant of the technical and literary meaning of "creation myth," and  agree that somewhere early in the article it needs to be acknowledged  that in many respects, the Genesis creation account (I could also accept  "narrative," "ancient text," or even "theory of origins") fits the  literary/technical definition of a creation myth. While I personally regret the choice of words "creation myth," there's nothing I can do  about that. I just don't want that phrase to overwhelm the reader either at the title level, or the first paragraph level. I hardly need to tell you that there is considerable scholarly literature which acknowledges  that the first and most prominent definition of the word "myth" is fictitious, imaginary, fable. The literature clearly acknowledges that the term is therefore offensive to people who take their Judeo-Christian  heritage or convictions seriously. There is no need to enshroud "myth" in red flashing neon lights in the title and lead paragraph before more  gently and diplomatically introducing the phrase "creation myth." But I do concur that it needs to be introduced.

"A creation myth is a cosmogony, a narrative that describes the original ordering of  the universe" (one of the scholarly article quotes). I have opted for substituting cosmogony for myth  in the title. That was immediately shot down.

I like what User:Michael Courtney, incidentally  an MIT doctoral graduate, wrote some weeks ago:

Forcing the word "myth"—as if everyone knows that we are using a much lesser-known definition of the term (which they don't)—doesn't seem to equate to  NPOV. Over and over, the overwhelming message seems to be, "Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is entirely made up."

Knowing that "myth" riles many readers (on and off Wikipedia) and starts them off  with a negative predisposition, why must "myth" appear in the very first  sentence? Why in the very first paragraph? Should we trade self-avowed liberal or atheistic preference for true neutrality in a really good article  that we want people to be able to read with an open mind? Or to ask it another way: will anyone not  continue reading the article just because the word "myth" does not  appear in the title or first sentence or so?

IMO (without the "H"),  some editors have an interest in using Wikipedia to attempt  to discredit the scriptures of two Abrahamic world religions, which is hardly NPOV, and more  like POV pushing. Another sentence I edited in and was immediately reverted: "Jews and Christians consider the text religious authority in  varying degrees, and interpretations range from figurative or  metaphorical to it being reliably literal." Genesis does contain the creation story that forms the basis of the Judeo-Christian  tradition. There is considerable continuity between Genesis creation and the remainder of the Hebrew Bible, and also in multiple places in the  New Testament, including the words of Jesus and the  Logos  (Christianity). It isn't unreasonable for a reader uninformed about the formal definition  of creation myth to conclude that if Genesis is a myth, then so is the  rest of the Hebrew Bible, the Christian New Testament, the Logos, etc. To me, this greatly increases the significance of this whole discussion and debate. I think of the number of school children who, from the time that they're able to read, either browse Wikipedia or are assigned  research on Wikipedia for a graded project. Does anyone genuinely expect them to know the formal definition of creation myth? Even if they do, is it reasonable to expect elementary and middle school kids to  cognitively process this distinction  correctly, and incorporate into their  reading paradigm, this technicality? For those from religious families, how are they likely to be affected by myth?

One final point (I promise). What about the premise that Genesis is just another creation myth and must be treated exactly the same way that we treat the  myths of all the other religions. The answer may lie in what some authors have called the marked discontinuity  between "pagan" (oops) cosmogonies and the Genesis accounts. While there are some obvious points of continuity between Genesis and the Enuma elish  for example, Genesis 1 is distinctive from virtually all origins  stories.

Thanks for asking for my opinion. That is very "new and different" in this matter. It's so interesting that you wrote today, for just last evening I thought of writing you a thank-you note, and then came your inquiry. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone! I'll try to put the summary in a better format and incorporate what I see from the other side's POV on the chart.  I think that most people (here) are concerned with creating a NPOV title.  That's a good thing.  Collaboration is tough enough when you have two sides that won't budge, but it looks like there's some flexibility on at least one side of this.  And there ARE other words in the universe than "myth."  To require that one singular word with no dissent is probably not a stable position.


 * Will the article be changed? We could do everything perfectly and see no positive change.  Sometimes the right thing doesn't happen.  And, as I said on the article page -- myth COULD BE the best word, but there's no way to know that without true collaboration.  My personal opinion is that myth should be replaced.  My PERSONAL sensibilities aren't offended in the least.  I like all narratives to be mythically constructed, and strive to do so in my own writing.  But as a Wikipedia editor, I know when to show consideration to audiences.  I'm well aware that I like "myth" because I'm a bit of a loon that way.  Joseph Campbell is a bit fringe in his bliss about the word, and I've caught some of that infection.  But that's not what anyone else here means by "myth" and I'm no idiot :-).  So... "story" perhaps.  We'll see what we all come up with (we includes the "myth" folks too).


 * Going forward we'll have to compress this summary, move it to the article talk page, and endorse those statements attributed to us. After that we'll have to reach out to the "myth" folks and be patient.  They're pretty... religious... about their POV.  Remember to be patient, fair, but consistent in a desire to follow the best mandates of Wikipedia.  There are competing goods here.  The good of "myth" is consistency with other articles; the term "myth" is certainly allowed in the subject matter.  I think the concern I'm hearing here is that "myth" is being pushed beyond a neutral proportion.


 * Remember also that the "myth" side really has a blind spot and needs our help, just as we have our blind spots and need their help. We can't have a collaborative article without them, and they can't have one without us.  If they lash out, be persistent and continue to offer to help them.  The goal is not to beat them.  The goal is to see what they have to offer and see if we can offer something to them so that the ARTICLE "wins."


 * And, finally, we need to be open to persuasion. The truth is that they could be right and all of us wrong.  Myth COULD BE the perfect word.  Again, as a writer I try not to be married to ANY single word, but not everyone is a writer, and some editors have to muddle through with whatever vocabulary they can.  Nevertheless, if we are not open to persuasion, then we are no better than someone else who isn't open.  Sometimes we have to lead by example.  But... sometimes we "win" by getting a change in another person, and sometimes we "win" even more by learning something in ourselves.  Be open, be persistent, be fair, and assume good will even when the verbage doesn't feel good on the recieving end.


 * Ugh... I hate religious articles. I really need to stick with stock market articles. ;-)EGMichaels (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The actual usage stats results provided by Dab on the talk page really need to be made into a table. The "myth" people have constantly asserted that "myth" is the correct term as used in scholarship, but looking at the stats shows this is simply not true. "Creation myth" is certainly the general scholarly term, but in the specific case of Genesis other terms are actually far more often used by scholars. I think Hans Adler admits as much in the talk page, but blames it on "systemic bias" in the English language. He may be right, but per WP:COMMON that is not our concern. All sorts of things have a different specific name from the general term for the kind of thing they are. The Isle of Man is an island, but that does not mean we have to call it Man Island. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent point, John! I'm also planning to make a table out of our pros and cons, after I research the stated objections of the "myth" side of the discussion.  I want all aspects of this fairly and fully (and clearly) presented.EGMichaels (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Genesis Creation Options (brainstorm)
mythologizers and non-mythologizers welcome

So far these are the options I've seen above (please add any I'm leaving out -- this is a brainstorming section)


 * 1) Genesis creation myth (Auntie E, EGMichaels, Ben, Nefariousski)
 * 2) Genesis creation story (Bus Stop, Johnbod, EGMichaels, Weaponbb7,Michelle cannon, Masterhomer, Afaprof01)
 * 3) Genesis creation account (EGMichaels, Templeknight, Afaprof01)
 * 4) Creation according to Genesis (Weaponbb7, Avi, Masterhomer, Templeknight, Afaprof01)
 * 5) Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 (Bus Stop, EGMichaels,Weaponbb7, Michelle cannon, Masterhomer)

Genesis Creation Discussion of Options (pros and cons)
mythologizers and non-mythologizers welcome

(after we get all the options down, I'd like a bona fide pro AND con from each person for each option. If you are unable to see the positive in the opposing side or the negative in yours, please sit back until others can jog your thinking.  We need a civil discussion seeing the merit in all views)


 * 1) Genesis creation myth
 * Pro
 * EGMichaels: conformity with other similar article titles. Would create minor problems if renamed and mismatched with similar religious creation stories (and major problems if ALL are thus renamed).  Certainly gets the reader's attention!
 * Auntie E: the article Genesis creation myth does use the word in the proper scholarly manner as our guidelines advise... in the formal sense of a story of a culture or religion of which the truth is indeterminable
 * Con
 * Weaponbb7: implies that the religion is just a myth
 * EGMichaels: WP guidelines prohibit the use as synonym for "falsehood." The refusal of some editors to substitute this word indicates that they are using it in this way. It taints the article and turns away other editors and audience.
 * Grantmidnight: Use of the term "myth" in the title passes judgement on the content
 * Avi: The term "myth" should not be in the title due to the connotations it suggests (falshood, etc.)


 * 1) Genesis creation story
 * Pro
 * EGMichaels: neutral, direct synonym for "myth" and good substitute
 * Con
 * EGmichaels: perhaps too innocuous. Doesn't grab the reader.


 * 1) Genesis creation account
 * Pro
 * EGMichaels: somewhat neutral (but less so than "story")
 * Con
 * EGMichaels: although a synonym for "story" (and indirect synonym for "myth"), it implies an objectively true event.
 * Weaponbb7: Again it makes imply it is absolutley true


 * 1) Creation according to Genesis
 * Pro
 * EGMichaels: innocuous
 * EGMichaels: could be taken as innocuous
 * Weaponbb7: Seems the most NPOV, this is exactly what it is.
 * Avi: completely neutral, whether one believes that Genesis is fact, fiction, allegory, or myth, it is completely accurate and indicates no preference as to validity
 * Con
 * EGMichaels: implies an objectively true event


 * 1) Genesis Chapters 1 and 2
 * Pro
 * EGMichaels: innocuous
 * Weaponbb7: Creation according Genesis Chapters 1 and 2: personal favorite but to long
 * Con
 * EGMichaels: well -- INNOCUOUS


 * 1) Creation according to Genesis
 * Pro
 * That is what the article is about and what the reader expects. --Templeknight (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Con
 * EGMichaels: unfortunately, could be taken as assumptive of objective truth.
 * Weaponbb7: seems ok but misses the artilce entirley

Comment: there seems to be a theme so far against an assumption of either truth or falsehood. At least the first two entries here are attempting a neutral wording.EGMichaels (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary Table
(moved to the article talk page)


 * why are there to "Creation according to Genesis" sections?Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Thanks.EGMichaels (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Genesis Creation Discussion of Actions
(need to list actions of all POVs)


 * 1) Propose to keep status quo on article for at least three months (Ben)
 * 2) Propose that no statements be considered for the article unless stated on the article page (Hand that feeds you)
 * 3) Propose that we finish the discussion here (to satisfy Ben) and then move the summary to the article talk page when it's clean and tidy, and each resign our positions on the move (to satisfy Hand) -- threading the needle between those two. (EGMichaels)

-Sorry, I've messed up your table formatting somehow. It is hard to edit. Can you sort? Apologies again. Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll give it a shot when I get back from the bank. Catch you in an hour or two.EGMichaels (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Genesis creation myth. Thank you. ''Your statement "King -- prove me wrong. If you REALLY mean some harmless neutral thing, then please give me your second choice of title" is a blatant declaration that you do not assume good faith. This has moved into the territory of issuing warnings and, if necessary, asking an admin to block you for disruption.'' &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hand, give it a rest. I don't think any objective observer would spend more than five minutes reading through the actual talk page before telling you to show a bit of... collaboration.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC) aka User:EGMichaels (talk)

Issue with reguading our discussion on creation myth stuff
TempleKnight has been banned for being a sock puppet see Sockpuppet investigations/Bischof-Ralph Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Note Singed properly at later time...

Best of luck with the baby
All the best, get some sleep, you're gonna need it! Nefariousski (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nef! You're right on that one!EGMichaels (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI Thread
Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Cheers, Ben (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring at Genesis Creation Myth
I see that you've been pretty consistent in reverting wholesale section deletes and other good faith / sourced contributions. If it seems like it's starting to get out of hand I'd suggest an AN/I posting asking for 1RR to be instated for a month or so just so you or other editors don't get dragged into edit wars or accusations of supression etc... Nefariousski (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nefariousski (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it's getting out of hand. Let's all make an effort to be cooperative - I'll start explaining myself more fully on Talk, for a starter. PiCo (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we overlapped whilst editing the narrative section. I just wanted to check your intention. I suspect we're both trying to achieve NPOV by indicating the two different interpretations. --Tediouspedant (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The differences between the NIV and Young's Literal Translation of Gen 1:1-2 at least raise some questions about assumptions currently made in the current article.
 * YTL reads 1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth - 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
 * Can you tell me, in light of the original Hebrew:
 * A. Whether verse 1 indisputably says that Heaven & Earth were created from nothing rather than 'prepared' from 'waste and void'?
 * B. Whether it is indisputably accurate to call Verse 2 'the result' of Verse 1 rather than a description of the primordial state?
 * My suspicion is that the Hebrew does not make the matter or the temporal sequence clear. --Tediouspedant (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

deletion of sourced material
In general, yes, one should not delete sourced material. But merely being sourced isn't enough - a statement with a dozen refences is over-sourced, for example. And more than that, sources need to be relevant and reliable - Robert Jastow, as a theoretical physicist, for example, just doesn't have the authority to be referenced as a source on biblical scholarship. (I'm not too happy about sources that date from 1899, either, but I'm letting that one stand for now - I'm making enough enemies). PiCo (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In an attempt to reconcile differences I have put this note on Deadtotruth's talk page: 'There are now two sections entitled 5 Theology and Judaeo-Christian interpretation and 6 Commentaries, Criticism, Controversies and non Judaeo-Christian views. I have no objection to anything about Philo's theology and Creation ex nihilo theology going in the former section and anything about the scientific accuracy of Creation ex nihilo going in the latter section. Hopefully that will help you and PiCo to accommodate your differences'. I hope this helps. --Tediouspedant (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to Philo's philosophical theories, nor the theory of creatio ex nihilo, being included in the article, but it should be done in a reasonable manner - a whole section devoted to Philo is out of place, and creatio ex nihilo is probably not what the original authors of Genesis 1 had in mind, according to modern scholars. (And we should use biblical scholars for our references, not theoretical physicists and astronomers). PiCo (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

See the various notes on wholesale deletions on PiCo's talk page. --Tediouspedant (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
King Öomie 20:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Myth
Hey Dude, As per wikipedia policy, changes to policy pages "may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change". It would seem as though there has been objection. As I'd mentioned earlier, the language you used is a little obscure. Can you perhaps try to describe in really mundane terms the issue you are trying to correct, and your proposed solutions? If you do, I will be more than happy to help make the changes needed. NickCT (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

sock puppet?
dude uhm..... are you aware of this? 

Congrats Eric!
Congrats on the baby boy. Best wishes Nefariousski (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :)EGMichaels (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, all other things aside, congratulations. -- King Öomie  13:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Birth announcements do not belong on an article's talk page. That having been said, congratulations!!Mk5384 (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While I'm here, let me also state that I am in agreement with you regarding the use of the word "myth". The term "myth" was added many years after the article was created, without consensus, or even discussion. These people continued to make these kinds of changes, including inserting the word "myth" into the Book of Genesis article, and even went so far as to change the story of Noah's Ark to "deluge myth" before they were finally stopped. As I have said on the Book of Genesis talk page, I am not a religious man, but militant athesists can be as bad as religious fundamentalists. I gave my opinion on the whole "myth" subject on a previous RfA, but if this debate is going to be reopened, please let me know. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Note
The note you're looking for is the first superscript link in the article. It says "note", and links to

"While the term myth is often used colloquially to refer to 'a false story', this article uses the term 'creation myth' in the formal sense, common in academic literature, meaning the symbolic literary structure of 'a religious or supernatural story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe.'"

-- King Öomie 15:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks :-). Don't know if readers will notice it, care, or (more to the point) buy it -- but at least we're claiming the whopper somewhere.EGMichaels (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack
Professor marginalia engaged in discussion on the talk page about the sources he considered illegitimate and gave valid reasons for removing them. No one, not even you defended the sources on the talk page. He did not deserve to have his good faith edit reverted as vandalism without any discussion as you did. This is considered a pretty blatant personal attack, and is not something I would expect from someone who has been around here as long as you have. Auntie E. (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no excuse for that. You do not own the page, so edits while you are gone are not "cheap shots." If you don't assume good faith to those who deserve it you can end up blocked. It's a tense enough page without personal attacks, so please reconsider your approach here. Auntie E. (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Genesis creation myth. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In answer to your question, I placed a 3RR warning on the talk page of the only user who had made three reversions on the page in question in a recent 24 hour period. I didn't see any other warnings warranted. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You did not warn me for 3rr (which I did not violate), but for edit warring. Was I edit warring against myself?  Hardly.  People edit war WITH SOMEONE ELSE.  You warn both parties.  Try again.EGMichaels (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I mean this sincerely
"You'll appreciate it when it's your turn to be vandalized by someone else" --this is well-meaning advice, I'm not trying to get a dig in. But ... seriously. You have been warned again and again. You need to put away the vandalism accusation until you understand what it means. Nobody vandalized here. Slow down and Think! before you use phrase it that way. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I echo PM above. Please read WP:NOTVAND to see what is not vandalism. Misinformation, unsourced edits, personal attacks, even disruptive edits are not considered vandalism. Vandalism is a very specific thing, and none of the regular editors of the page have engaged in it. Some may have been disruptive, but none have vandalised. You need to understand: there are few worse things to be called here at Wikipedia. It does not help your case at all to insist upon using the term. Auntie E. (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Aunt -- let's say I go around deleting all your hard researched refs without discussing it with you? What term would you call it?  I'll use that term.EGMichaels (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read below the edit summary box: If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.

I repeat: IT IS NOT VANDALISM TO EDIT BOLDLY. Unless you say you understand this is not vandalism, I will have to report this. I've tried to enlighten you but you are just not getting it. Please understand, I'm trying to help. Read WP:NOTVAND. And please don't respond to this until you have. Auntie E. (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop
"(Pico, I don't think even the Professor will agree with wiping out Wenham -- (now you're stepping on my own edits))"   The article is not a jousting match between you and Pico. In particular, leave me out of it and focus on the content. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
Maybe they'll change the title on the Genesis Creation Myth page for your birthday to something that is NPOV? Deadtotruth (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
And a belated happy birthday from me too! :)) Alastair Haines (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Case
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Alastair Haines RfAr
Personally, I see little wrong with Alastair's edits regarding religious topics. It's his continued belligerence and edit-warring at gender-related articles (Patriarchy, Why Men Rule, Gender of God, Gender and religion, Singular they, Hijra (South Asia), etc.) that I want to address in the RfAr. He seems to have a particular vendetta on that issue. The only reason the Jehovah's Witness people were even included is because Alastair somehow got involved in a war there this week, so I thought it would be weird to leave them out. Kaldari (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The disputes on those articles (except for Hijra) go back over a year so there's a lot to dig thru. Kaldari (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

RFArb comment
Hi, just want to let you know that I moved your comment to your section since normally threaded comments are not done on the Requests page. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 01:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I saw on your comment on Alistair's page and wanted to give you some background on how to look at Alistair's discussions. The appearance of fairness and impartiality is a careful and consistent part of his obstruction.  When I began working here, I printed the current discussion and used highlighters to distinguish the various participants.  This is more about whether the article is progressing, how things have gone since he appeared, and whether his objections to sources, etc. are legitimate.  On that article the current discussion was 52 printed pages, where he was involved.  And there were several archived pages.  The article was still a mess.  Thanks for looking at this.--Hammy64000 (talk) 14:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hammy. I'll do some digging.  As I said, my experiences have been positive.  He supports sourced material and seeks to move controversial statements from titles and ledes into the body of an article.  That's pretty much my own approach.  He DOES sometimes give people the impression that he's "on their side", and they get disappointed when he won't support their elimination of an opposing POV (which he is also encouraging of in discussion).  It's possible I missed something, so I'll be glad to look further.EGMichaels (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict
After contending with several edit conflicts in quick succession, I overwrote your last edit at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses without restoring it, as my comment made your assumption redundant and the repeated edit conflicts were driving me insane. It should be evident when you read my comment.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Inadvertant removal of your posting
Whilst fixing a reply that I made on Lisa's talk page, I believe that I accidentally removed your comment. As there has been a successive edit, I was unable to restore it. Although completely accidental, this was entirely my fault, and I do apologise. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant responses moved from unrelated ArbCom

 * Other Christian religions??? I'm rubbing off on you!EGMichaels (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (EGMichael's here refers to my colloquial use of the word religions rather than its more strict technical sense.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I was using your more technical use of the word "religion" rather than a colloquial use. A religion is a stand-alone unit, which they clearly are.EGMichaels (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That being the case, and in view of your stated opinion here, you are using the term in a quite different sense to me.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I've been consistent. A religion is a set, and a denomination is a subset.  A religion stands on its own; a denomination doesn't -- because if it did, it would be a religion.  Hence, "We're a denomination" begs the question of "a denomination of what religion?"  But "we're a religion" can be used with a full stop.EGMichaels (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point. The point is this: please don't presume to tell me the manner in which I intend the use of a word. If I happen to use the word religion in a colloquial manner to refer simply to 'a religious group of some kind', having explicitly stated the manner in which I intend it, please don't tell me that I mean it in the sense you prefer.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I didn't say you MEANT to use it correctly. I just found it humorous that you were accidentally correct.EGMichaels (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not accidentally correct. I am well aware of the colloquial usage I deliberately employed, and I also aware of how to use a more strict application of the term when I so desire. Your interjection here was unnecessary and counterproductive.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, so you weren't accidentally correct. You were... correct in spite of your best efforts.  Got it.  I'm amazed at how much offense you took at "hey, I'm rubbing off on you." Am I THAT heinous that any agreement, even accidental, is offensive to you?  If that's the case, I'll try to steer clear of you in real articles.  Unfortunately, we're stuck in this distraction for the time being.  Be very careful about what you say.  I might (boo!) agree with something... and we wouldn't want that, now would we?EGMichaels (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're still doing it. I was correct, and I don't agree with you. The problem is not that you agreed (which you didn't), but that you implied that I hold a point of view that I don't, and then said you agreed with that. You simply agree with your own strawman. Please stop.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Jeffro, take a deep breath. It WILL be okay.  Look, this is the kind of back and forth Alastair's been going through as well, where a person can't even AGREE without an argument.  All I said was "I'm rubbing off on you."  I wasn't accusing you of anything, nor was I claiming some great sea change or profound breakthrough.  Lighten up.  It's this kind of chronic disagreableness that's plaguing the talk pages now.  Seriously -- Jeffro -- this encyclopedia shouldn't be about our disagreements or our positions.  All we're here to do is to record OTHER PEOPLE'S disagreements.EGMichaels (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop pretending I took offence at you 'agreeing' with something. You pretended I agreed with you, misrepresenting my views in the process. Nothing more.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

BarnStar
Wow! Thanks Weapon!EGMichaels (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

RFAR: commenting in the correct section
You may not be aware of the correct way in which to comment on the Workshop page. Each proposed Principle, Finding of Fact, or Remedy has a distinct section for three categories of people: As you are neither an Arbitrator nor a party to this case, you should be commenting in the "Others" section, and as such I have moved a number of your comments which were incorrectly placed. For more information, please refer to the Guide to arbitration. Thank you. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators
 * Parties
 * Others

Wikibreak
I'll be in training over the next few weeks and will probably not participate much (or at all) during that time. If you try to contact me and I don't respond right away, please understand that I'm not ignoring you. I'll get back to you as soon as I get back :-) EGMichaels (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Taking issue with some "evidence" you posted
Claiming that the Arbitration Committee requires all parties to consent to entering arbitration is to reuse a word, balderdash. If what you were claiming was correct, then every user who has ever been blocked or banned would have a case that they didn't specifically consent to the arbitration being held. Just like Alastair, you have a skewed and incorrect view of how Wikipedia's policies actually work. It's arbitration in that the results are binding upon the parties. If you think that you and Alastair are being treated fundamentally wrong, I suggest you file a complaint with the Audit Subcommittee (fair warning, I am a member, and as such will obviously recuse), or with Wikipedia's ombudsmen. SirFozzie (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sir Fozzie -- thanks for your note. But it's not balderdash to use a word by its defined meaning.  The Arbitration Committee was established to end disputes, not presume sides in them.  Most of the problem with disputes is not the content of those disputes, but rather the failure of one or more parties to agree to disagree.


 * Interesting that you say you will obviously recuse. Why is your recusal obvious and my requests for recusal balderdash?


 * In any case, trust me, this should have never gotten to this point. It can still be de-escalated with no harm done.  And if Alastair were dealt with on a low level and we end up in another ArbCom through correct escalation process, then you will have proven me wrong, wouldn't you?  There's no downside in this for you.  None at all.EGMichaels (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice..
Hi. This is a message to let you know that the proposed decision in the Alastair Haines 2 case has been posted. Please see this link for the proposed decision and to view the arbitrator's votes on this case. SirFozzie (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

EGM, this link contains some advice and relevant information for you... it has been removed from the ArbCom page, probably because it is unacceptably truthful / accurate. I advise considering my words before responding to the impending threat to perma-ban you too. 138.130.123.17 (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- I had not considered that. But you do offer sage advice.EGMichaels (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2
This arbitration case has been closed. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Alastair Haines is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year, and thereafter pending further direction of the Arbitration Committee under remedy 2.
 * Should Alastair Haines wish to return to editing Wikipedia after one year, he shall first communicate with the Arbitration Committee and provide a satisfactory assurance that he will refrain from making any further legal threats against other editors or against the Wikimedia Foundation. Should Alastair Haines, after being permitted to return, again make a legal threat or a statement that may reasonably be construed as a legal threat, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
 * To assist Alastair Haines in disengaging from Wikipedia, the case pages relating to this arbitration and all related pages have been courtesy blanked. As appropriate, other pages reflecting controversies to which Alastair Haines was a party may also be courtesy-blanked, particularly where the discussion is no longer relevant to ongoing editing issues. In addition, if Alastair Haines so requests, his username (and hence the username associated with his edits in page histories) may be changed to another appropriate username other than his real name. Editors who have been in conflict with Alastair Haines are strongly urged to make no further reference to him on-wiki following his departure.

Judaism
You recently made a very constructive comment on the talk page. I really blieve in compromise, but I also believe in policy, and I think you did a fine job of pinpointing the issue. In the spirit of compromise I just made an edit which puts "relkigion" back in the lead, but with a few other items. Do you think that it still complies with policy or should I undo my (or Debresser's) edit? If you are content with the lad as it curently stands I am fine with that, but I want to make sure it takes into account the important point you just made. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Wikiwatcher1 has been trolling around the Judaism page; see this bit of talk for a sample. He just reverted the change I made, which was a good-faith compromise and citing the Jewish Encyclopedia, the standard Jewish reference.  He insists on using regular dictionary definitions over sources by Jewish scholars.  I suspect he has a general agenda reflected in his POV pushing in other articles.  WP:DE points out that a disruptive editor often evades detection because the disruptive edits are spread out among different articles.  I think there may be just such a pattern here.  Would you mind watching the Judaism page and see how he has been altering a consensus-version text without any consideration to points made by editors who have been working on the article for years?  We need your sane perspective, seriously!!  Thanks. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The lead was the result of a lot of collaboration and consensus among diverse editors and has been stable for a long time.  Weall know that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary;" I really am offended that someone thinks a dictionary trumps using works by major scholars in the field! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Revisionism
The "annihilation" that you allege has been taking place against ex nihilo didn't happen. It didn't happen. Instead there was a very concerted effort on your part to present ex nihilo as the standard interpretation. Here represents a very measured, sensible, supportable, balanced handling of it. And here is what you offer instead. Here is an example of a very measured, sensible, open-handed offer to discuss the removal of the Philo section. And this is an example of an editor the door slamming shut. And returning to ex nihilo, here we see how the edits to get rid of the Big Bang refs, the redundant repetitions of "ex nihilo", and your own very one sided pro-nihilo section titled "Prologue" (the original, more balanced prologue wasn't removed as you alleged in the edit summary, btw, it was simply moved) gets completely mischaracterized as an attempt to get rid of ex nihilo altogether--when an ex nihilo discussion had in fact remained there in the article the whole time.

The histrionics, hasty conclusions, and the constant fault finding and finger wagging against your fellow editors is disruptive. It also serves to "poison the well" and embroil editors into "clique" wars. I wouldn't be be so pointed on this issue now--this happened months ago. But the problem continues. You continue to rely on this kind of historic revisionism to push your weight around and prevail in talk page debate. I'm guessing it probably had a great deal to do with PiCo removing himself. Most editors there are trying to focus on the content. You come along waving your highly unorthodox rule book over references and "who's supposed to do what when" and condescend all over editors who aren't following it. It's an uphill getting any real work done in the article to begin with. There are strong opinions about how it should be written. But please-just focus on the quality of the edits themselves. Leave all the extra "baggage" behind. It only distorts the conversation. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You-"As for elimination of ex nihilo, this was a typical PiCo edit: . You'll note that there is no remaining support for the view, no mention of ANY scholar holding it, and merely two statements that it's not in the text."


 * His edit is exactly correct, isn't it? Ex nihilo isn't in the text. Everyone knows it isn't in the text. It's interpreted by some as meaning "from nothing", but it doesn't say it.  PiCo's statement there is 100% in accord with the source you supplied shortly prior, Orlinksky.  Orlinsky says much same thing--he leans to the "no ex nihilo" view himself.  PiCo replaced it with a source more readily available, this, which I think pretty accurately describes Orlinsky's view.  But nevermind, you completely unraveled the whole thing, preferring ex nihilo and the astronomers. (Relating to your edit summary, Wenham was the very last in line, submerged under a dozen refs consisting of Big Bang devotees, one NT translation, and two 2000 year old primary source refs. It's impossible to fault someone for unintentionally slighting Wenham here.  Which we can assume happened in this case because PiCo had recommended Wenham specifically earlier.)


 * I've tried to view every revision following the very heavily weighted to "ex nihilo prevails" edit of yours, and this is the only one from PiCo which can even remotely be accused of "pushing" ex nihilo off the page altogether. The worst that can be said of it is that it's the reverse of the one-sided claim you made--only PiCo's was more accurate in stating current scholarly opinion than yours.  Even this one edit of PiCo's was followed within minutes with this of his on the talk page: " - and what do you do? First you restore all the garbage, and second you travel to the talk page to give PiCo's proposal a total brush-off, sending him off with a lecture to contact those "other guys" responsible for the remaining content you restored to seek their consensus to remove it.  And I know how hard you must have looked to find this one example of "ex nihilo being pushed off the page because I know how hard I've worked to find even one other one. Exaggerate much?


 * This is a good illustration how distorted things get when "EGMichael's rulz" get mixed into the equation. How many hours have been wasted defending junk that you won't let anyone get rid of without going through this labyrinth of rules you've invented in your mind about preserving "placeholder" pseudo-references, contacting editors individually for ok's to make changes, and requiring editors to go to the library to find new sources that confirm contested claims as replacements prior to removing bogus ones?  How much space on the talk page is consumed with absurd attacks and diversions?  That you dismiss those who don't agree to abide by these fictious rulz as "unwilling to do any real work" while I find example after example where it's you who is consistently "otherwise engaged" when confronted to follow your own prescription is tendentious in itself.  But after two months of needless edit warring and baseless accusations, it is now you who concedes ex nihilo is not, after all, the prevailing view.  And guess what.  Before you insisted it was, the article described them both simply, evenly.  Now the issue is so buried in gobble-dee-gook nobody unfamiliar with the theological debate will have a clue what's what.  Thankfully, after 3 or 4 dozen needless reverts, the parade of Big Bang references have finally been removed making it slightly less embarrassing to the project.


 * This issue isn't about ex nihilo. This is about a mindset, a pattern of engagement and disruption that is interfering with process.  That's what I'm after.  I'm asking you to stop kicking up dust. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You-"As for rules... I have better things to do with my life than to be insulted when I suggest we be courteous. You really have a need to delete any view you don't agree with, by hook or crook, and I don't have time to sit around while you try to justify it."


 * You just keep telling yourself that-that's what you want to believe, but that's not at all how I've edited there. This is the sum total of my edits to the article: 28 cleanup edits to footnotes and bibliography; 8 uncontroversial cleanup edits for copyright infringements, refs that aren't RS, and claims that were misworded or otherwise unsupported in the references given to them; 6 revisions to the creationism section (still intact);  6 vandalism reverts and copy edits; 1 controversial "summon" edit, no edit war to keep it; 4 uncontroversial word tightening "tweaks"; and 8 edits to remove all the Big Bang nonsense refs-each and every one of those edits leaving ex nihilo intact in the article with its other refs.  Zero edit warring on my part; just one revert and for what? Yes, that's right, for your restoration of the Big Bang references.  So this is just more of the same from you, argumentative historical revisionism.


 * What pushed my button is watching the pattern repeat itself again. Once a discussion unfolded about using good sources for ex nihilo and being accurate about what the references say, the discussion derails as you retreated from the substance of the issue -poor quality of sources- back into second-guessing others' supposed motives and reassigning everyone editing duties according to "EGMichaels Rulz" again.  Nobody was discourteous there--but you.  You accused others of laziness, of ulterior motives, of not understanding or abiding to NPOV, of refusing to collaborate, of creating a strawman, etc.  When I tried to nail down your strange notion that "horrible" sources can only be "upgraded", not "removed", you tried to justify its "necessity" with a frame-up-blame-game on PiCo. ? .  This isn't collaboration, it's crazy-making.  I've never had a strong opinion about ex nihilo-I have a strong objection to the use of totally ridiculous references and falsely sourced claims.  And I will continue to object to them, and continue to object to crazy-making dust clouds obscuring the issues on the talk page.  If it's still not clear to you where I'm coming from, it never will be, so enough said. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

EGM
assume you havent edited recently due to you baby (congrats btw), if and when you do return drop a line Weaponbb7 (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens w/ GPS
Alastair has had a son, Felix, born this Holiday Season. I'm sure he would enjoy hearing from you.
 * Happy Holidays..--Buster Seven   Talk  25 December 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:EGMichaels/temp
User:EGMichaels/temp, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:EGMichaels/temp and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:EGMichaels/temp during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)