User talk:Jasonasosa/Archive

Harran
Sorry about the last revert, I rv'd myself after coming to prefer your edit. We can infer that Harran belonged to Mitanni and Hatti for part of the pre-Assyrian period, but it's not that big a deal that it comes under Assyria for now, until more details on that time can be added. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it. We can totally break that section away from the Assyrian period... But, it should be titled as such. Good stuff. Jasonasosa (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

BC vs BCE
Well, there's no real rule either way, except that it's supposed to remain regular throughout the article. I believe the article on various Saints use "AD," while the one on Muhammed probably uses "CE." Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking about when it is appropriate to use BC vrs BCE... my first thought was... to use BC for christian doctrines that occured before christ... but then I thought... wait... how can a christian doctrine occur before christ when christ is the starting point? A paradox!? or is it really secular vrs christians?! Jasonasosa (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In general, if it's something that only Christians lay claim to, AD and BC are fine. If it's something that multiple groups lay claim to, CE and BCE are preferable.  It's not so much Christianity vs secularism, I'm a Christian, and I feel a little uncomfortable when I see people occasionally change stuff to BC/AD in the Druid article. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on Abraham
You may request it at WP:RFPP, any admin would review it, but very probably an admin would say that there's not enough vandalism for protect it. Tbh®tch Talk © Happy Holidays 05:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And Tbhotch is correct - one vandal edit in the last 50 doesn't nearly approach the level of activity necessary to protect a page, so I have declined your request for semi-protection. Please read our guidelines on vandalism for more information. If you'd like to see some vandalism, we have lots of examples - but this isn't one of them. ;-)


 * Also, please don't add a protection template, such as pp-dispute or pp-semi-protected, to an article that is not protected, nor should you add editprotected to a talk page to an article that is not protected. Only administrators can protect articles and, as you have probably surmised by now, you're not an administrator. ;-) It's deceptive to other editors to add the little padlock to an article when it is not, in fact, protected. I'm sure you wouldn't like being confused like that, so please don't do it to anyone else.


 * If I can be of further help, just ask. Thanks for your interest in and contributions to Wikipedia! :-)  K rakatoa    K atie   07:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your fast response in the matter. About the padlock thing... This was my first experience with vandalism and not two days before, I saw the padlock on another page and thought I could use it. I didnt know it was for administrative use only. I really thought it was a code available for an editor. I wasn't trying to "act" like an administrator. I know that probably fusterated the heck out of you and maybe others and I'm sorry about that. I really thought it was something I could do. When talk:Tbh®tch made the correction to the template that I thought I could use as an editor, I realized that something was wrong... I dug around, thinking there was a template or code for protecting the page and tried all sorts of things until I realized that it was not in my power. So after more digging around, I finally got to the request page. That ate up about an hour of my time... all because I saw that padlock code and didnt know it was for admin use only. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem - you aren't the first one to think that adding the lock locks the article. If that were the case, we'd never get anything done around here. If I can answer any questions, just ask. :-)  K rakatoa    K atie   22:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Lot (Biblical)
Thanks for your bold editing! Springnuts (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that sarcasm in your voice? lol - Jasonasosa (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

P.B.U.H.
To address your comment, P.B.U.H. stands for peace be unto him and it doesn't surprise me that someone tried to add it. I agree that your revert was good and I was trying to find an actual policy/consensus to point the original editor to, but the closest I could get was MOS:HONORIFIC which indicates that honorifics are not to be used. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for the tip. I figured as much, thats why I was quick to remove it. (Reverted statement...meh) Jasonasosa (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi - I suggest you read MOS:ISLAM -- you can remove any of these that you find (unless of course they are in quotations). Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

the pictures were excellent!
I saw that you added the fantastic image to the Abraham page from Promputarii Insognium etc. Do you have any more like that,, of Biblical figures, because I feel the gallery in Wikimedia Commons does not contain all of them. Furthermore, as most of the Islamic views are now being merged with the main page (see Elijah, Zechariah (priest), and Aaron), should the same be done with Lot??
 * Yeah, I like the Promputarii Insognium images too... however, there are many people who object to them because they are not colorful. I think they are great though. I make them, but I will tell you that not everyone will accept them. As far as Islamic views on main pages... I noticed many inconsistancies in layout with many holy people. This is how I think the layout should be to keep a neutral point of view:


 * I don't understand this table? May you please also categorize the images with the category of Promputarri Insognium etc. --Imadjafar (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Haran (biblical place)
Hey, Jason, if you created that article with content from another, that needed to be stated in the first edit. You can still indicate it on the talk page. It's a necessary thing to do so that the editors who contributed that content at the original article are properly credited. SamEV (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My dear Sam, Til and I got into a huge edit war about the creation of a new page called Haran (biblical place). This page was non existant before because Til insisted that biblical Haran was in fact Harran. I dont dispute it... but... to date... there is no published archeological evidence to physically link the two places. So... I felt that it should be a seperate article to focus more on its biblical aspects. Til was greatly opposed to this "forking"! My article started from scratch using some pointers from Harran, but if you compare the two...my page is its own entity. I created all the content and provided all the sources for this article with the exception of whatever is redundant from the Harran subsectioned article. I will add a note about that in the discussion page... but I dont know who all the contributers were to that section.Jasonasosa (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * O, I know the story. But what I meant is that if any content was copied from another article, it should be stated, per Wikipedia policy.
 * You don't have to list the contributors' names; you only have to name the article. SamEV (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. LOL... you know the story?! Geeeeez... yeah, I guess the edit history of the article speaks for itself. :/ well not to mention one of the discussion pages around here. Good times anyway... I also think, but am not sure, that someone attempted to do this before because Til kept saying that what I was doing had already been discussed. Thing is - I didn't see that discussion, nor did I see a final consensus. And you know what? Doesn't matter if I saw it or not... cuz the fact remains that EVERYTHING has to be referenced and cited... if it aint, it dont fly and that section we fought about had absolutely NO references... so for all intensive purposes it was subject for deletion. LMAO - but yeah, you know the story. :P Jasonasosa (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd taken a break from the Harran and Haran articles, and when I returned I found you guys at each other's throats. The edit histories and a talk pages told me the tale.
 * I don't know what he means about its being done before, either. Maybe he's referring to some trouble he and I had a couple of months ago over whether we should say that Haran is "often" or "always" ID'd with Harran. I insisted that to say "always" is OR, unless one can cite a source that makes the claim.
 * Because you too insisted on maintaining the separateness of Haran and Harran, given the lack of scholarly proof for their identity, I bet he even wondered for a while if you're me!
 * BTW, is "for all intensive purposes" the same thing as "for all intents and purposes"? :->
 * Cheers, dude. And Happy New Year! SamEV (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize it was YOU that had this same dispute with him earlier. He kept going on about how it was already talked about, but so what? And nah, I dont think he thought we were the same person, we have diff styles :p. Btw, thanks for your supporting edits on Haran (Biblical place)... you dont know how hard it was to maintain that page from being utterly destroyed because of "intents"... which I wonder what his whole intent was as if forking the two pages Harran and Haran would create some rift in time and space! LOL Jasonasosa (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, thankfully the stakes are not that high!
 * However, content/POV forks are not allowed, and he was accusing you of that kind of forking. But I don't think it's a POV fork, because the equation Haran=Harran is not totally proven yet. And despite that, I admit that the equation most likely *is* true. But the verification just isn't there, AFAIC.
 * Re: the notification, take a look at Template:Copied (and Template:Copied multi, if there happens to be another article whose content you used for Haran (biblical place)). You fill in the info and place it on the two affected articles's talk pages. If you want me to do it, let me know. SamEV (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Harran was the only page that I used content from. I listed the sections accordingly. I also developed Harran from scratch, that was none existant before, not copied from any wiki/web source, only formed by its references. Jasonasosa (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks but...
I appreciate the thanks, but I don't want to take credit where credit isn't due. Someone else proposed the change, it looked reasonable to me so I carried it out. (BTW, I poked around your talk page and it looks like you are doing a lot of good work - thanks.)-- SPhilbrick  T  19:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to belabor this too much, but I don't deserve the credit. And, interestingly, I don't know how to figure out who does deserve credit. The proposed move showed up on the administrator dashboard, because it required administrator rights to carry out. I did not write the edit summary, someone else did, and set it up so all I had to do was check a box and carry out the move. So while my name shows up as the person doing the move, someone else wrote the edit summary. I agreed with it, but I can't take credit for it. -- SPhilbrick  T  20:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Your eagerness is appreciated....
Your eagerness is appreciated, but please take a moment to discuss the Move of the Nontrinitarian page on its associated Talk page. This issue has been discussed in the past, and previous discussions have indicated a preference for the non-hyphenated version of the word. Your comments on the topic would be appreciated. -- Avanu (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-trinitarian
If you look at the talk page, there is a move discussion where moving the page to that title was rejected. You will need to gain a consensus for this move before doing it. Please move the page back to the current consensus title. Thank you.  N419 BH  07:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For your information, this move and the current talk page discussion is the subject of a thread at the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents.  N419 BH  09:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Only the Christ can open the "7 seals"
Just a reminder to Jason & everyone that only the Christ can open the "7 seals". - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.121.70 (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Just wanting to remind Jason & everyone about what the Bibles says and that you should heed the Bible's warning! - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.121.70 (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Message back
Hey, I'm kinda new to Wikipedia so I am sorry if this isn't the proper place to reply to your message. Thanks for your compliments regarding the Noah article. I too think that we all pulled together very well for that. I'd be happy to keep an eye on those articles that you mentioned. User :BeforeTheFoundation (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Curse of Canaan
Hey, I did some work on Curse of Canaan go ahead and check it out. Tell me what you think. Also be sure to check the Talk page. BeforeTheFoundation (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Skarebo (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paul Niskanen
A tag has been placed on Paul Niskanen requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. AstroCog (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Template tip
The way to mention a template, for example on talk pages, without having it interpreted, is to use tl or tlx: for example: POV-section displays POV-section. Elizium23 (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip! I'll do that next time. :) Jasonasosa (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

BPGR
Did it cross your mind that in prophetic beasts of Daniel it might be an idea to state what on earth BPGR stands for? &mdash; RHaworth 10:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol! I don't even know! It's not my material... that whole mess swamped the Daniel pages and I thought it best that they be moved to their own page. It's not my editorial research and I really don't care if the page and all of that content is deleted.Jasonasosa (talk) 12:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You did state that in an edit summary. I will try and find the author and userfy the text. &mdash; RHaworth 12:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers - Jasonasosa (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, you just admitted it's part of your agenda to do away with this crucial informative data by shunting it all off to some unwatched grave and then demanding its deletion. By the way, it stands for Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, but those are secondary interpretations; there is no indication whatsoever in the primary text that the beasts from one chapter are intended to correlate with those of any other chapter. The only identity given in any chapter, is the head of the statue in Daniel 2 being identified as Nebuchadnezar of Babylon, and there are no beasts in this chapter. Jason, please start discussing your planned major overhauls on controversial articles. Many editors have worked to ensure they are neutral, and then you come and turn them upside down seemingly according to your fancy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care, Til. Take it to an administrator. Jasonasosa (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't care to collaborate with other editors who have already worked on the article? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My edit changes are on the discussion pages... if you have an objection to one of my edits, see the discussion page of the page in question. If I haven't posted my changes to an article in the discussion page, post your objection. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia
One thing you will want to observe with all the copy-paste you are doing is the article Copying within Wikipedia. Wikipedia's licensing requires attribution, and the pasted text is being only attributed to you in the edit history. Consider using the template copied for edits you have already made, and in the future, adding "copied from article name " to your edit summaries. Elizium23 (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Copying within Wikipedia, my copy-paste attribution in the edit summary is sufficient. Check the history for Belshazzar and The writing on the wall. I indicated my moves with a hyperlink. The only thing I goofed on was putting The wrighting on the wall making two edit summary entries bad links. Jasonasosa (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Further, I posted this > Talk:Belshazzar on 16:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC) as well. - Jasonasosa (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay! Looks good. Sorry to bother you. Elizium23 (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

literary chiastic structure of the books of daniel
I was wondering if any of the scholars you have found have commented on if the literary chiastic structure of the books of Daniel argues for multiple redactors or a single author because of the structure. Johnjonesjr (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a great question that I'm hoping to get an answer for. So far what I've noticed is that many critics of the Book of Daniel build these chiastic structures around the language that the original source text is in. For example, Joyce G. Baldwin proposed a chiastic structure that only encompassed the Aramaic portion. William H. Shea is the only person I've come across so far, that tried to apply a chiastic structure that encompassed the entire book of Daniel. Shea's attempt seems to suggest that he believes only one author wrote the Book of Daniel. However, scholars like Baldwin, seem to imply that one author wrote the Aramaic portion, and another the Hebrew portion. And yet, perhaps someone else wrote chapter 1. I have yet to see the chiastic structures for Daniel's four visions. There is still a lot of research to be done to put this all together.
 * On a side note, I'm trying to look beyond the controversies and present all the different views and perspectives, in my research and editorial activity, on Daniel. It's a great challenge, and I enjoy doing it and I thank you, User: Johnjonesjr, and User: StAnselm for watching over me, to ensure these pages come out being reliable. Jasonasosa (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Preserving is good
This edit made me think you might be unfamiliar with WP:PRESERVE. Also, the IP and I had made progress. I posted on the talk page. Jesanj (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Uhm, we don't preserve Original research. Thank you very much. Jasonasosa (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry
To contribute to any amount of Wikistress. Take a look at that list in case you haven't before. I know, you probably don't want to hear it coming from me right now. You had a decent point at the end of Talk:Adam_and_Eve. Sometimes I like the back and forth. My apologies. Jesanj (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you :)
Thanks for the compliments. Actually I usually find Til quite possible to work with. He has some set ideas, but he's also fair and reasonable. I try not to upset him too much, although I know that his ideas and mine are about 180 degrees opposite, because I do honestly want him to continue enjoying editing Wipedia.

You raise the interesting and difficult question of just what a Wiki article should look like - who's the audience, essentially. I try to aim for the interested senior highschool level and above - in other words, I aim to give a basic introduction to the subject, not an exhaustive in-depth treatment. If they want to learn more, there's the sources that I list - I try to find ones that are recent and mainstream and (I hope) pretty readable. So I've been told the result is that I "dumb down" articles. Maybe in a sense I do, but it's sort of an inevitable byproduct of the audience I aim at. Unfortunately, I don't think Wiki has ever actually addressed the question of audience level.

Hmm..sun is shining, birds are singing...hey, there's a WORLD out there! (Must tell Til - actually I wouldn't mind getting together with him over a beer, I think he might be quite good in the flesh, as he really does know a lot). PiCo (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked sock
You may recall. This editor is now blocked as a sockpuppet. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * LMAO, I do remember him... on the Daniel pages. He was kind of quirky and just liked to debate, just for the sake of debating, even when he wasn't 100% sure. It was rather annoying... but at least he was much more tolerable than Brad Watson from the Seven Seals page. May he rest in Wikipeace. - Jasonasosa (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He was one of five, I must have spent 24 hours so far cleaning up copyvio, etc. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow...that sucks, man. Those multis are a real pain in the *ss. I might have to have another look see on the Daniel pages.Jasonasosa (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Lucifer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Greek


 * Sons of God (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Ibn Ezra

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

AfDs
Please, never remove the template for an AfD. They have to run their course and be closed properly, either by an uninvolved Admin or an experienced editor. You should read WP:POVFORK more closely, we don't allow pov forks. I've replaced the AfD template and removed the 'unresolved' template. Jess is a good editor you should try to work with. Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Crap... I don't know how I missed that... those articles are really extensive... Jasonasosa (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Noach (Parsha)
And Noach (parsha) are not the same!. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on Talk:Noach (parsha) and Articles for deletion/Noach (parsha). -- Dauster (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Fallen angel" in deuterocanonical Book of Baruch
I am surprised at the claim that there is a reference to one or more fallen angels in the deuterocanonical Book of Baruch. I have had a quick look at the text and have found no such reference in any of its sections: Introduction; The Prayer of the Exiles; Wisdom, The Prerogative of Israel; The Complaints and Hopes of Jerusalem; and (if this is considered part of the book) The Letter of Jeremiah. Has there perhaps been some confusion with the non-canonical, not even deuterocanonical, 2 Baruch, 3 Baruch, 4 Baruch? Esoglou (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was mistaken... The books of Baruch are considered Apocrapha, but you are right... only 1 Baruch is listed as a deuterocanonical book, and there is no mention of the fallen. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Bible verses
I'm not sure what you want to do. WP:NOR discusses using primary sources. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible or ask User:In ictu oculi or User:John Carter. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible might be useful. I could also pick their brains too. (the above mentioned)  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  08:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hiya!
After a couple of busy years, I wanted to sloooooowwwwwww dooooowwwwwwnnn, and I've now succeeded, starting last summer. But I still enjoy the odd bit of editing here and there.

Dude, it's very nice to spot you in this place. Keep having fun! SamEV (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Weekly Torah portion
Hi Jason: I am not quite sure where you are coming from when it comes to editing the pages relating to the Weekly Torah portions -- something that is done within Judaism. It makes no sense to "produce" articles that will give a Christian perspective on every point in a parsha because that is not the way Jews or Judaism have practiced it. Sure, people try by using WP to distort things to suit themselves, but if the purpose is to convey and describe and explain what something is and the way it's practiced it is rude and stupid to start out by conveying that it's all a pack of lies or some such. How would articles about Jesus or the New Testament sound if they were packed with lies and distortions that others held about the subject? To be objective and scholarly, first let's hear what the subject has to say for itself. Later in the future there can be articles about "101 ways to disprove and disparage the weekly Torah portions." Hope you get what I am trying to say. Feel free to stay in touch. Shabbat Shalom, as Jews get ready for this week's weekly Torah portion of Devarim (parsha) where no Christian, secular, or atheist views will be conveyed in any normal Jewish synagogue on Earth as far as is known. IZAK (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the rant, but I don't think you were following my edits. I never gave any Christian perspectives to the parsha articles. If I did, let me know exactly what that was... just for my own edification. Anyway, I am not editing parsha pages from this point on, indefinitely. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  10:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about you, I was talking about the "trend" that once an article about Judaism or relating to the way Jews practice the Torah gets written (no matter what it's quality) what eventually happens is that every editor feels qualified to give opinions and edit. For example take a look at User 's WP home page, he openly says there: "This user is a secular humanist" so how can one feel comfortable when he steps in the deepest Jewish articles about the Torah and opines and cuts away? Sure, articles need improvement. But there are ways of doing that, and it's not by butchering them and inserting every last secular and other POV in them that renders them meaningless and void of any significance within their original context. That is what WP:NOR is about and so many folks do not realize that when they get into subjects that are obviously not their specialty, they are committing grand-scale WP:OR and violations of WP:NOTMADEUP. Just because someone does not like a 2,000 or 3,000 year old teaching from a Jewish text or tradition does not mean they have to abuse that subject's articles. I would never dare enter into User:Mann jess's field of computer science and IT expertise and opine there, like who would care what I have to say and who would take me seriously, but when it comes to religion and Judaism everyone assumes they are "experts" when it's obvious they are worse than like a bull in a china shop and subsequently all of WP and it's worldwide readership suffer because they get fed erroneous junk instead of what the subject is all about in the first place. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, IZAK! You made such strong points there that I copied your response on my user page, hope you don't mind.
 * Sorry for butting in, but I wanted to observe that when I first became acquainted with wp in early 2005, it was not only discouraged, but actually forbidden to state what one's POV affiliations were on one's home page. All editors were expected to keep a strict semblance of neutrality even on their home pages, and there was no such thing as a user box.  This didn't last long as people started pushing the envelope with language boxes and more and more overt statements and proclamations of their personal sympathies and POVs, and there was actually a massive opposition in the beginning to any form of user box other than a language ability box.  (Non language user boxes were being deleted routinely in those days). In the end, the idea of controlling user pages became unenforceable with the sheer size of the project. I agree it's better if editors show voluntary, not enforced restraint, but I still find it more reassuring of confidence when editors don't play their hand so openly, and act like they really are capable of adopting an NPOV instead of playing for one of the "teams" we are supposed to be describing neutrally. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * IZAK, the religious views of other editors play absolutely no role in content discussions, and opining on them (and whether one's religious convictions make certain editors suitable for certain subjects) is wholly inappropriate. You're going around reverting editors without discussion, and in some cases without even so much as edit summaries when discussion has already taken place. Please stop, and discuss the issues you wish to address on the talk page. Please also read WP:BRD. If you have an objection to edits that are being made, please actually state them. Thank you.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Izak's argument seems to be that one's religion, or lack of a religion, inevitably gives an editor a pov that they can't avoid and that they should not be editing religious articles that don't share that pov. Which would end up with all religious articles being edited only be members of that faith.(alternatively he's saying you can't be an expert on a religion without believing in it, which isn't the case in real life). There are times when it is a tremendous help to have an expertise in the subject of an article, but there are many times when anyone with a good grasp of our policies and commitment to them, and an ability to research, can be a better editor then an expert on the subject, or particularly an expert on a faith who also believes in that faith. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Doug, this is not my view, so stop it. My only point is that an article should reflect it's subject matter accurately, and for that a certain amount of expertise is required. That is obvious. Before editors go on a splurge to change articles, they should display a basic grasp of the subject. Sure anyone can take out a hatchet against any article, but articles need to be about what they are about not what a WP editor wishes they should be about. My record speaks for itself, I do not begrudge good editing and never have. When it comes to the 54 portions of the weekly Torah portions, they need to reflect what Judaism teaches about them because that's what they are about. Otherwise it's all hogwash when it gets filled up with "101 views against the subject" and no one reading the articles will take them seriously. IZAK (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * REQUEST: Someone has centralized the talk about this subject at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha), so please let's keep the discussion going over there. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
FYI, I made another comment over at my talk page. I know you probably have it watchlisted, but I just wanted to make sure you got a chance to see my explanation of the recent CSD noms. Thanks again! :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Original sin
If you read the section on Eastern Christianity, you will see that Eastern Orthodoxy should not be put under a heading "Rejection of original sin". I also think a religion such as Islam in which "the concept of original sin does not exist" should not be given a section in an article on original sin. Any more than should Buddhism, Hinduism, Shinto, Taoism, African traditional religion, Native American traditional religion, Marxism, Materialism, etc., etc. The section on Islam that you have added may say something about the Fall of Man and about Iblis, but of course it says nothing whatever about original sin, defined in the article as "humanity's state of sin resulting from the Fall of Man".

I would have no objection whatever if you removed the two subsections on Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholic Church under the heading "Rejection of a concept of personal guilt". They really add nothing of value to what has been said earlier in the article. Esoglou (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can pick a better shorter concise title then if you would like... I'm not stuck on the "rejection" title. I could argue with you about the Islam section... but I really don't want to. Its not a tradition, its an Islamic view that their entitled to have. I brought the content over from another article because its within wp:scope. There are some doctrines that are rejected, and those views are allowed to be noted as part of NPOV.
 * Also, I'm all about removing useless content. Feel free to remove the two subsections on orhodoxy and catholic church if you want. I have no objection... I've moved on now to other articles... I'll swing back that way if nothing is done. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  09:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As you may have noticed, I picked a longer but more accurate title than "Rejection of original sin".
 * No, I cannot feel free. I gladly accepted to make no edits on Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice as a cheap price to pay for getting another editor to refrain from making slanted edits about Roman Catholic teaching and practice.  Esoglou (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds sticky... but I will have a look see later, putting on my best objectional glasses of course. lol &mdash;  Jasonasosa  09:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Learned69 (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)about your undoing of the Talmudic account of the great flood because you don't think that the Talmud belongs is a secular section. This section attempts in part to disprove the myth because no evidence of this has been found in Israel. If however there is a version of the myth that says that Israel was not flooded then the lack of evidence of a flood in Israel proves nothing (if anything the fact that there is evidence of a flood in those other places but not in Israel backs up the Talmudic version). It is therefore relevant to note this version of the myth in this section. The Talmud is just as equal a source for the myth as the other sources that the article cites, and so it qualifies as a version of the myth. The sages in the Talmud that said this didn't decide it on their own, they were saying it based on their tradition of the story.
 * This section is not a version of the myth, it is secular evidence. traditions are religious POV. The Flood myth section is strictly secular. However, as I noticed, it might serve well somewhere in the Flood myth section, but certainly not under the The Mesopotamian flood story paragraph. You will have to move it, yet again. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  13:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hawkins
Not worth getting blocked for 3RR, so maybe you should walk away for a day or so? There's no rush anyway, Dougweller (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ya  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  20:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

AFD of Genesis 1:4
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Genesis 1:4. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Curse and mark of Cain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Soulless and Francis Brown


 * Adam and Eve (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Mankind


 * Curse of Ham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Reuben


 * Forbidden fruit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Transgression

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

David R. Hawkins
You got your wish. Personally, I think people should be made aware that his various claims are suspect and people turn to Wiki for that kind of thing. By the way, any opinions on the Prema Sai Baba article? Touted as a "bio" of a yet unborn spiritual leader to be incarnated. Just a thought. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Prema Sai Baba
Interesting additional reference you have posted to this article. Do you care to quote the page of this book, regarding Tibetan Lama reincarnation, that references the future incarnation of Prema Sai Baba as the future incarnation of the recently deceased Sathya Sai Baba the Indian guru? While living in Tibet, I never heard it discussed nor read anything about it there so 'enlighten' me. I only became aware Prema Sai's "biography" here on Wikipedia. Sometimes you can find more on the internet, so I am open to that. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

And considering, that before 1963 there was no mention of Prema Sai prior to the heralding by Saytha Sai, you don't find all subsequent mention a bit close to source...? Not to mention Prof. Ruhela is referred to as an 'ardent devotee' on the Sai Baba page and Chitkara a part of the Sai Baba Educational Trust Fund. Might just be a tiny bit promotional on both fronts. I just find it an interesting paradox of views you hold in regards to criteria as to 'who' is worth a mention on Wikipedia. Maybe when the article was listed as "biographical" you might have thought twice, or not who knows. I just wanted to see what you would do, once you saw that I recommended it for deletion, you didn't disappoint. You keep on building a nice article there! Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points to consider. I have to edit through it to determine. I am still on the fence. Same with Hawkins... I had to do my research first. Too bad you can't check the Hawkins edit history to know this. :( lol. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  07:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hawkins is a bit of an arrogant scoundrel and Prema Sai doesn't exist and is not even essentially heard of outside of those who promote "him" within the Sai Baba faction. Its all relative. Anyway, both interesting exercises in Wikipedia. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My vote is Delete as indicated on Articles for deletion/Prema Sai Baba (3rd nomination). Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  07:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hawkins article Fallout
Jason, I took offense at Carter's tone and accusatory remarks about my person and that was my problem to keep in check, which I could have done better at. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They understand. Just try to keep cool when under pressure is all, even if you receive criticism... stop for a moment to consider why it is they are doing what they are doing. Put out an inquiry. Give them a chance to answer without assumption or preconceived notions. Sometimes I get ahead of myself in my edits and even I have to stop for a moment to figure out if I'm overstepping any lines. Always double check your work and its even wise to do a background check of who you are speaking to, by looking at their home page. Sometimes that helps determine how to approach certain wikians. Arguably, the most important rule to remember is wp:goodfaith... because a good understanding of this policy automatically projects wp:etiquette and wp:civil and puts wp:de to rest. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  22:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know Carter and had not dialogued with him prior and I was surprised to see his first remarks posted to me on my UserPage in the tone that he posted them. He wasn't primarily addressing the sources in Hawkins (as it was edited by a few users last month, well you know you were there) but he got on my case about my last edit in AfD that was not clarified at the moment of closing, where I was correcting my errors in tense and point I was making in the discussion. I think I took too much at offense at someone I do not know, and never spoken with telling me I was possibly going to be sanctioned for something that had not even taken place (recreating the article under another name). I was actually signing off with you last and had not noticed Carter's earlier remarks, so I should not have addressed them in such a tired state. Regardless, it was a bad mix. Carter has now stricken his and my dialogue and apology to him about it from his UserPage and now going about addressing my past contributions. Anyway, it is what it is and he does as he chooses, I hold no ill-will towards the man. I guess I over-expected 'good faith' from an admin on such an interaction. And after my time here since the earliest days, 8 years back, I have not once been addressed in that fashion here, (well, I think maybe a rant by a newbie once about a garage band) (and grant that I (and you too, for that matter!) sometimes straddle that etiquette line), I was more surprised than anything and should not have addressed him in kind. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I went back and took a look at Hawkins AfD and it looks like something I said in defense of the KEEP there set Carter off. I was not aware that it was him when I stated above that I had not dialogued with him prior to him threatening sanctions on me on my UserPage for something I had not done. I was not aware of who Carter was on AfD or that he was the type to single one out/follow me/continue a trivial issue or whatever one chooses to call what he is doing on the various forums I have engaged at this point after AfD closure; I was not aware he was taking issue with me at that point so I didn't (and still don't) understand his reasoning for abrasiveness/uncivilly on my UserPage yesterday. I know you are a "Carterite" and "Dougite", as you say, and that you and I haven't seen eye-to-eye for sure, but through these processes, I have come to both appreciate your tenacity and balance, and ability find center on an issue or a positive position and not be assuming, arrogant or uncivil. I notice you always give people a chance to be rise above the actual reality of the triviality here and to be the better person. It shows good character in you. Enough said! Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  04:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Response
John Carter (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Assistance
In attempting to get proper assistance, and since you are familiar with the previous Article and AfD, (and issues I seem to have created here); I am looking for the proper forum to properly discuss certain issue around points of notability that I seem to be missing in the David R. Hawkins deletion. To avoid conflict and WP:REHASH with previous editors and users who contributed to AfD, is there a proper page to discuss such issues? Again repeating, as the point of my possibility of bias seems to be in question, I do not care much for the man himself, just clarifying that point. Any direction here from you would be appreciated. Signed Tenacious Mole. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, the virtual advertisement on the above editors' talk page does indicate that there may be much more than a "possibility of bias". That section reads very much like an outright advertisement, actually. The first thing to do is of course to actually familiarize oneself with WP:NOTE and the related specific notability guidelines linked to on that page. I would have thought that someone who boasts of being an editor since 2003 would already know that, but, well, it wouldn't be the first time recently that my I thought reasonable expectations have proven wrong lately. Also, in general, it is interesting that WP:CIVIL seems to specifically list "lying" as uncivil behavior, althouth it unfortunately doesn't go into detail as to what sort, if any, is specifically being considered. John Carter (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

To clarify my non-bias towards the author, my observation is that the man wrote a notable book and did advanced research with a nobel prize winner Linus Pauling, among other works in psychiatry, and then "corrupted", in the view of myself and many, his later works with highly skeptical concepts, in detriment to his own reputation, as to what he lectures and writes about currently, most of which go against my own personal beliefs. Flatly, I have no respect for the man himself but that is my opinion. I don't know how to be more clear on that position. As to further accusations from the above user, I am not lying, and know of no other way to address that here, particularly in regards to this article. My only bias is towards the author being notable and having been noticed both nationally and internationally, and that is all. That was not the point of my request for assistance here. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, feel free to search my edit history towards the author and connected works in this field, I was unaware of either before last month when I searched for information on the author only to find there was no article here. I should add, that establishing that I have been only a periodic user since 2003 is not a boast; to see examples of "boasting" please go to admin user pages.-- Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Genesis 1:1
I have reverted your edits on Genesis 1:1. Simply put, I don't think you have consensus for these sorts of edits. After all, the AfD had comments like " the sourcing problems derive from a lack of footnotes" and "informative and well-written article." It really does look like you are trying to delete the article through the back door, after you nomination failed at AfD. Now, I agree with you that the article needs considerable work, and I appreciate the work you do on biblical articles, but I don't think this sort of hyper-pruning is the answer here, when the consensus has been to keep the article. StAnselm (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  04:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your work on this. Yes, I am happy with your changes. StAnselm (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Abraham
Just letting you know should the discussions continue on the talk page above in the manner they have been RFC/U is always an option. I regret to say it wouldn't be the first time. Also, as you do seem to be one of the editors who is interested in working on Judaism related content in an NPOV way, I thought you might be interested in some of the redlinks at User:John Carter/Religion articles in the "Israelite religion" and "Judaism" sections. First, I want to point out that it is not me who separated them like that, that was the way they were included in the Synoptic Outline, which basically functions as the table of contents of the Encyclopedia of Religion I copied it from. Considering how comparatively few articles it included related to modern and older Judaism, I would think the articles it does include would probably in many cases be among the more important topics related to the subject. John Carter (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi User:John Carter, thank you for presenting the WP:RFC/U as an option. I will consider it. I am upset that User:IZAK made a false accusation against me and then lied about it... but it was mostly over talk page content and not so much over breaking policy, so I don't think it would qualify enough to report to WP:RFCN. What's really stupid is, the argument is not even about improving the Abraham article! It is over a title dispute that was used on its talk page, Talk:Abraham. Since the argument doesn't involve improving the article, I don't think I could use WP:WQA either. The whole thing is more or less a disruption of time taken away from editing. Thank you for the User:John Carter/Religion articles link. That was nice of you to consider me for interest there. Also, thank you for noticing that I at least try to keep things NPOV with Judaism even though there are Users who are blasting me otherwise. I've worked extensively in all subsections: Scholarly Academic (might be better term), Christian, Judaism and even Islamic (<-not extensively though in this particular field). Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  21:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:WQA should according to the information at the top of that page be useful for breaches of WP:CIVILITY, which includes dishonesty. And the fact that there was no apparent logical reason for it might make it even more significant. Also, having two people discussing the same problem with a user is more or less required for an RfC/U, so having it discussed there might help there as well. WP:TE and WP:DE might also be considered. Believe me, I know how hard it is to keep anything relating to religion NPOV. There is a seemingly endless run of some religious subject somewhere which is currently in an NPOV mire. Messianic Judaism, Soka Gakkai/Nichiren Buddhism, Falun Gong, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology, ... the list goes on. Anyway, one last thing that might be useful to you. The invitation to sign up for free subscriptions to the Questia, Highbeam Research, and Credo Reference databanks shows up on the top of my watchlist, and I think probably yours as well. If not, just search for the words and you should find the signup pages. For any subject relating to the religion, the reference sources available on the Highbeam, which is the only one I have so far, has been invaluable, and I think the others would be as useful. If you wanted to sign up for them, I think they would probably help you a lot too. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look into this.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  22:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Other language wikipedias
They all have their own policies and guidelines more or less, their own Admins, etc. Some are pretty different. Dougweller (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doug. Lady was just telling me that too. We can finally walk away now. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  05:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes Jason, as I stated earlier about your comment to attempt to remove the German Wikipedia article on David R. Hawkins as well, you should probably keep that contention contained and satisfied here on English Wikipedia. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Curse of Ham
Generous comments. If I came across as rude at any stage, then I need to apologise.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We are a pretty tough crowd, don't feel bad. This article is really controversial and spurs a lot of debate. It's really only natural that things might get a little heated. So I wouldn't worry about anything. The only time editors get in trouble is if they are name calling, blast excessive? obscenities, or calling other editors vandals, including any behavioral violations under WP:DE. Anyway, I enjoy a good clean banter... it stimulates good editing. Quite honestly, there are only a handful (and I'm probably being generous) of wikieditors, that I know of, (and maybe it's just the crowd I hang with....lol) that have a real mastery over wp:etiquette. I guess the key during real hot debates is to at least find wp:civility at some point of an argument, even... if its afterwards. (Yeah, I know we are supposed be wp:civil through and through an argument, but you know how it goes. :) Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  13:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Jewish material
One all-caps editor who shall go otherwise unidentified here has been consistently and almost solely working on material relating to Jews and Judaism for some time, and so he is rather well-known and well-liked by Jewish editors. That being the case, when he asks for assistance or input, there will be some editors who offer it. Also, as can probably be expected, there is a rather emotional component to some of the Jewish editors, based on the rather regular wholesale slaughter of Jews across the world in the past several centuries. And, of course, like with any religious subject around here, there are editors who have what some might call more "fundamentalist" beliefs regarding Judaism, and they in particular are likely to offer assistance to like-minded editors. Having said all that, there is a discussion at WP:AN/I right now relating to Jewish editing, and I believe, as I say there, that there is potentially grounds for requesting an Arbitration case regarding that matter, certainly if no action is taken regarding the dubious behavior in question. I'm not sure how familiar you might be with ArbCom, but they make a point that the behavior of anybody and everybody involved in a dispute can be taken into account, particularly if evidence regarding them is presented. And, yes, they have shown a history of sanctioning anyone regarding whom they have been presented what is in their eyes sufficient evidence of misconduct, particularly if those individuals involve themselves in the proceeedings. I don't know if this is actually directly relevant to anything, of course, but it might be worthwhile to once in a while look at the active ArbCom cases and requests. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thanks for this update. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  22:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Forbidden fruit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Yehuda, Meir, Ibrahim and Araf


 * Original sin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Pearl of Great Price

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That IP
Edits by other IP addresses can be taken into consideration when deciding whether an IP should be blocked for edit warring. I see another Admin warned him this am. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. He beat me to it. If the ip reverts again, it's going to AN3. I'm waiting because if we hit AN3 without a direct 3rr violation, there's a good possibility it will only result in page protection, which is unfortunate for everyone. I'd much rather just see the ip stop warring than have to protect the page.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I really believe this editor is the same guy that is running the show at Genesis 1:3, Genesis 1:4, and Genesis 1:5 also. What's really weird is that he seems to know wiki policies like an experienced editor... I don't get the feeling that he is a newbie. I hope this can be looked into. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  15:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Audio interviews
As far as i know, we accept audio sources if documentation, even if audio documentation exists.  DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis 1:3
Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing.
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * This is bullshit when the user's IP changes constantly.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  17:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I must say I'm not quite following the logic of that reply. -- 202.124.75.14 (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't expect you to follow anything.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  06:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Lot's wife (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Sodom and Zoar

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion
You may be interested in this discussion. I'm notifying you because you participated in the first deletion discussion and/or the deletion review. Lady of  Shalott  16:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest in my input on this page. I have commented for deletion.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  18:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Please Assume Good Faith
Yes, I started the article on Feinberg because I believed he was truly notable enough to warrant an article. In fact, my thought process went something like this... "hmmm, an editor is concerned that Feinberg isn't notable enough even to be a source for the genre of Genesis (which he is). I wonder if it's clear in his wiki article why he would be notable enough.  What? There is no article on Feinberg?  I thought I wrote one.  Oh, yeah, I wrote one on his father, Charles (a key figure in the early 20th century fundamentalist/modernist controversy).  I guess when I wikilinked him in that article I thought I'd come back and write up a proper bio for him, and never did.  Oh well, better late than never." The statement I made on the other talk page was related to the article on his seminary, which I didn't write. I also didn't bother to look up any statistics on Trinity, but rather assumed that the statement on wikipedia that it was among the largest in the world was probably accurate, which is why I said "according to wikipedia". You may now unbunch your panties. Ἀλήθεια 23:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can appreciate that you wanted to create an article to back up a potential source. However, the article you created does not meet Wikipedia standards as I indicated at: Articles for deletion/John Feinberg‎ which basically hurts your case to provide a wp:notable / wp:reliable source. Thanks for your concerns.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  23:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is an AGF issue, but perhaps it is a WP:BEFORE issue. I think both the Wipf and Stock and John Feinberg nominations may have been over-hasty. But there's no harm done, and I've made quite a few over-hasty noms myself. StAnselm (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see it that way. I am proving these articles. I am not hell bent on their deletion. If you want them, if you create them, do them right. When I create an article, I never copy and paste a bunch of info from an internet site just to have a quick article. You have to understand that there are debates that are hinged on sources that if their reliability is questioned, can spoil the outcome of the debate. Either we get it together here, or get rid of it. Thanks,   &mdash;  Jasonasosa  01:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, remember WP:BEFORE, C1: If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. Not to mention C2: If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. StAnselm (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For John Feinberg perhaps you are right. However, in the past, I've also created a cat=b article that was to serve as a resource for the Daniel pages, that was shut down in a matter of hours for lack of sources. So what's the standard? For Wipf and Stock created in March, 2012, how much time is needed?  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  01:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is notable, there is WP:NOTIMELIMIT. St Anselm (talk) 01:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And how do you prove that a source is notable if there is no verification, or resources to back it up? This is like the dog chasing his tail scenario again.  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  02:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the goal was not to "create an article to back up a potential source." Potential sources don't need wikipedia articles to be considered reliable. That's where the WP:AGF issue arises. In addition, your statement that "...it was you who actually copied that content crap from somewhere on the internet and pasted it into..." seems to border on a personal attack. It's fine if you don't believe that the subject is notable enough to warrant an article, you've made that perfectly clear at the deletion discussion page. We will wait and see whether the rest of the editorial community here agrees that there is sufficient notability, but please don't make disparaging remarks about my process for creating the article when you have absolutely no idea what effort was put into it. Ἀλήθεια 01:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To post that much content in one shot in a limited amount of time without any sources at all, not even 1 source, gives a pretty good idea about the effort that was put into it. Like I said before, do it right or get rid of it. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  02:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Be careful please, this is bordering on a personal attack. Comment on the edit, not the editor. -  Nick Thorne  talk  07:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Since you say you've unwatched my talk page...
When I was studying Mandarin, I remember a discusson about the words "wan xi" and "bao quan". The former means "I'm sorry". The latter roughly means "it's unfortunate". It seemed to me that your "apology" was more-or-less in line with the latter as well. If you are truly sorry, I have no problem accepting your apology. Your comments really don't seem to indicate that though. What I want you to understand -and what Dangerous Panda painstakingly tried to explain to you- is that it's unacceptable to start a frivolous ANi thread over a trivial issue, especially when no prior attempt has been made to resolve it. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Joe, I understand what is being said. Like I said on your talkpage, "I overreacted". Which means that I acknowledge what I did wrong. Therefore, since DP wouldn't let it go, I encouraged him and any other interested parties to take it to ANI. Because I understand that you have a valid case. I can only say sorry so many times, so I don't know what angle to approach this at, other than at ANI. I don't know what you want me to do to put this to rest. I realized even at ANI that I overreacted and that's why I rescinded to WP:AFG. I didn't have to do that, you know. I could have dragged it on over there and fought with all the way up until an admin appears. DP's comments just don't help the misunderstanding that took place. I misinterpreted your actions to think that it was a slight against me and did what I did. Was it right? No. So we are in agreeance, so I don't know what more needs to be disputed. Thanks,   &mdash;  Jasonasosa  21:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Why are you being difficult
{{The only question being asked of you is this: why did you go directly to ANI when you were were supposed to try and resolve the issue directly with the editor first? It's a simple question, and one that you're avoiding. You could say "I didn't know" or "I didn't read the instructions at ANI", or "I'm new, so I didn't understand how Wikipedia works", but most importantly you could finish by saying "I understand now, and it won't happen that way again". Asking you a direct question as to whether or not you have learned something is not something that I need to take to ANI now, is it? dangerous panda  08:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, I don't have to answer to you. Stop harassing me, and just step off. I will only answer to Joe on my TP, or to an admin at ANI. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  15:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not answer an admin here on your talkpage? This is not harassment, I'm asking you a question to make sure we're not going to have this problem in the future - I'm here to help you not harass you  dangerous  panda  17:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already answered Joe on this issue. I have already made it clear that I misinterpreted his actions of removing my comments and that I overreacted from the debate by posting to ANI, thus rescinding to WP:AGF which was accepted by {{User|Niceguyedc}} and thus closed. After-which, I apologized to Joe on his talkpage and on my talkpage. I am not going to repeat myself any further. If you have an issue with me, I encourage you to take me to ANI. Otherwise, if Joe has nothing further to comment, the matter is closed so stop beating me to death with this WP:HORSEMEAT. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  17:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Jason has got the point. I also think that it is confusing for an person who is an administrator but is not at the moment using their administrator's account but posting with their alternate account which isn't explicitly link and signing their name with a username that isn't actually the name of either account to ask 'Why not answer to an Admin here'. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Doug...the point wasn't that I am an admin, merely that the editor is really required to answer a simple question ... pushing it to ANI is the quick way to a block, instead of resolving the problem. One never knows who's asking the question ... it could be an admin, a buro, an editor ... just answer the damned question  dangerous  panda  22:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While {{User|EatsShootsAndLeaves}} monitors WP:ANI, a dispute occurred at WP:ANI where, DP chimed into the conversation with "we expect editors to learn from their mistakes - not to keep justifying them. Show the learning, and we can all move on". I thought it was interesting that the retort by {{User|Eff Won}} was "Have you read any of the discussion on this above, or followed any of the links provided? It isn't me making stuff up, refusing to correct my mistakes or wrongly accusing others of wrongdoing." Now, in regards to this dispute, I do not know these editors, nor have I posted to that thread. But based on my observations, it appears that {{User|EatsShootsAndLeaves}} jumps right into a debate, just like between me and User:Joefromrandb and projects this attitude that he is ready to save the day and help all newbies who suffer from lack of WP policy enlightenment... or else... as you can see in his above statement, threats of "the quick way to a block" and in a fit of frustration charges "just answer the damned question". Is this how DP "Show the learning, and we can all move on?" Is this really befitting of a wp:Sockpuppet who claims on their alternate account that "they certify that it will not be used for sockpuppetry", when DP acts like an admin by saying things like, "I'm here to help you" or Why not answer an admin here on your talkpage?". How far is DP going to go "to make sure we're not going to have this problem in the future"? How many threats of blocking is he going to make? How much longer must he beat this WP:HORSEMEAT when the matter has already been handled and closed by {{User|Niceguyedc}} and no further comments have been made by User:Joefromrandb? I am being interrogated by a wp:sockpuppet, when the matter can easily be resolved between me and Joe where it started. No one else needs to be involved especially when it was closed at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive768. If Joe remains silent, then I am left to assume that this matter has been put to rest between he and I. Thanks,   &mdash;  Jasonasosa  07:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree - User:EatsShootsAndLeaves was quite clearly referring to himself when said "Why not answer an admin here on your talkpage?" He is not an admin, only the sockpuppet of the admin User:Bwilkins. This is a misuse of multiple accounts, and the fact that he won't back down from this only makes matters worse. StAnselm (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Will I be blocked if I take {{User|EatsShootsAndLeaves}} to ANI for this abuse? What can I do?  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  08:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any reason in the world that you should be blocked. Just make sure your post on ANI is as neutral and objective as possible. The basic question is this: is the alternative account of an admin allowed to refer to itself as an admin in order to influence the behavior of other editors? It would be good to get some community consensus on this. StAnselm (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Anselm. But first, before I do that... since I've "learned something" so as "to make sure we're not going to have this problem in the future", I am going to "discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."{{sup|[1]}}
 * {{sup|[1]}} WP:ANI
 * Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  08:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ANY editor is allowed to ask the question which is being refused to be answered, and there's no implied threat: the question is "do you understand that in the future, you're supposed to try and resolve the problem directly with the editor, and not go to ANI first" ... it's not harassment, it's not abuse, it has nothing to do with an admin. It has nothign to do with any apology.  It's a simple question, assisting the editor who went to the wrong place the first time.  Why anyone is reading more into it than that is absolutely ridiculous  dangerous  panda  08:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have opened the case: WP:ANI. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  09:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Post ANI

 * Although, based on our discussion on my talkpage (yay), I consider this closed, can I ask a question: I don't understand the phrase "How many threats of blocking is he going to make" ... I've never threatened anyone here with a block - and I hate to have words put in my mouth. Could I have a bit of help understanding where that came from? dangerous  panda  09:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have interpreted the statement that you made above, "pushing it to ANI is the quick way to a block" as a threat in conjunction with the following threat "just answer the damned question " which seams to enforce the previous statement you made, "to make sure we're not going to have this problem in the future", statements that appear to be counterproductive/counter-intuitive to "I'm here to help you". This has led me to believe that if I were to take you to ANI for such abuse, I first had to ask these question: "Will I be blocked if I take to ANI for this abuse? What can I do?" of which User:StAnselm kindly assisted me in the action I should take. Thanks,   &mdash;  Jasonasosa  09:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No no no no. "pushing it to ANI is the quick way to a block" is advising you that the intent of ANI is to deal with actions that require an immediate block of another party.  An accidental removal (or even non-accidental removal) of text is not an immediately blockable issue, which is why I've been here advocating discussions between editors in the first place!  dangerous  panda  09:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did you refer to yourself as an admin? Why would you think that was relevant? I can understand if Jasonasosa took it as an implied threat. StAnselm (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jasonasosa stated "I will only respond to admins at ANI" - my comment was a generic "why not respond to admins here on your talkpage", after all, that's the whole thing I'm trying to teach here: ANI is for immediate blocking requirements, and minor issues are to be dealt with between adults on their talkpages. My phrasing had nothing to do with the admin status on my alternate account dangerous  panda   —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very glad to hear this, because I and at least two other editors interpreted it differently. StAnselm (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why I loudly advocate talking things out between people instead of making mistaken filings :-) We're all learning1   dangerous  panda  09:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting the objective of this User, DP, having a goal of: "I'm trying to teach here". Is there anyone that can tell me who granted this User the right to teach me by the force of threats that I indicated above?  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  09:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never once threatened you, and such accusations are not appreciated dangerous  panda  09:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The bold statement that you made: "Just answer the damned question" suggests that if I don't answer the question, I am to expect something adverse. This in turn is interpreted in my mind as a threat. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jasonasosa  09:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Just answer the damned question" is simply frustration that the question "do you know that you're supposed to try and resolve issues directly with the other editor first" was not being answered, and that the discussion had now spread across multiple pages. There's no implicit or explicit threat.  dangerous  panda  09:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:ANI, Admins with Alt accounts can pretty much get away anything. &mdash; Jasonasosa  11:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC) }}

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Feinberg
— Northamerica1000(talk) 00:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I've been pondering whether to close the deletion discussion per WP:SNOW. (I commented but have not !voted at this stage.) Are you still convinced of the lack of notability? I would prefer it if you withdrew the nomination and then I could close it under WP:SPEEDYKEEP, but if you can't withdraw in good conscience, that's fine. It just seems to me that it would be better to bury this and move on. StAnselm (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Anselm. I will withdraw. &mdash;  Jasonasosa  07:39, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. StAnselm (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Jasonasosa and WP:HARASS. Thank you. dangerous panda  09:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks,  &mdash;  Jason Sosa  09:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Jasonasosa, you got your point across, and you know who is who now. So please let me know why this still needs to be a point of contention? Gentlemen of character and kindness don't beat others up needlessly. You made your point. If Bwilkins actually does something awful then you may make it again, but why drag it on further? -- Avanu (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I liked your recommendation on his talkpage... I will concede if that change is made.  &mdash;  Jason Sosa  10:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It isn't about who wins though. It is about whether something needs fixing. You know who he is, he's been made super aware of what the expectations are, so why not just drop it either way? -- Avanu (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not really about the link Avanu... it's about how he administers being an admin. I don't think he is qualified to be an admin due to his strong-arming tactics by trying to get me to say things that will please him and will pound the WP:HORSEMEAT out of me until I give in, not to mention his devious behavior by the comments he's made, as I've stated above. But... something has to give right? So, I will concede on the simple change that you suggested Avanu... because I really just want to get back to editing as normal. I never want to see Bill Wilkins or any of his ridiculous alternate accounts near me. He can stay on the otherside of wikipedia. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jason Sosa  10:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So just let him be then. I've often seen that once people just stop talking to each other, things settle down. -- Avanu (talk) 10:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All I ever wanted was. User:EatsShootsAndLeaves‎ to have WP:AGF faith in me when I overreacted to an ANI I posted here at: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive768. When I apologized to those involved, he did not accept my apology but posted on my talkpage: User talk:Jasonasosa/Archive. I feel that the change you recommended will be a symbol or pact if you will to end this wikipedia nightmare. Thanks,  &mdash;  Jason Sosa  10:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Please understand
I have edited your user talk to remove a statement in accordance with WP:POLEMIC. Please note in particular "these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive". If you believe you have legitimate concerns there are processes available to you; I can tell you from what I have seen that you do not have legitimate concerns with regard to this specific situation. Please find a way to move forward. Regards  Tide  rolls  11:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Indeed. You clearly need to drop the WP:STICK here. The previous ANI made that clear. BWilkins does not have to change anything on his userpage, and your threat to "voice this until User:EatsShootsAndLeaves account is shut down" is quite obviously in violation of WP:HARASS. I don't think anyone wants otherwise productive editors to be sanctioned for something so completely avoidable so - please disengage from this issue now. Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 10-4  &mdash;  Jason Sosa  11:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting! ```Buster Seven   Talk  04:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop
I took you at your word that you would cease the actions of our last conversation. This is a demonstration that my good faith was misplaced. If you find any ambiguity in the statement that I will block you to stop the disruption caused by your continuing to comment upon the legitimate use of alternate accounts by User:Bwilkins, please let me know.  Tide  rolls  02:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)