User talk:Jbull

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:
 * Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
 * Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).
 * Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Create a User page
 * Be bold
 * Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 00:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome, too
I wanted to take a moment and welcome you, too! We had a great discussion on the Luther page. I hope the books will be helpful to you and the Luther and humanism front. BTW, I am a librarian (and a pastor -- long story) by trade, so if you're looking for something, do not hesistate to ask. I'll see if I can pin it down for you.

BTW, it would be helpful to put a few words about who you are on your user page. It helps others get a quick idea of your background and interests. --CTSWyneken 14:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, CTSWyneken.--Jbull 15:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality Flag
Would you be willing to move the flag down to the section on Luther and the Jews? Where it is it suggests major problems with the neutrality of the whole article. As far as I can see, only the continual discussion on Luther and the Jews is in dispute.

Also, to be picky, the argument is current over completeness and not neutrality, since both perspectives came to an agreement on the text that held until the assertion of one editor who did not interfere when it was being discussed and composed and another who is new to the article. Would a different kind of flag be more appropriate?

One other favor I'd like to ask. If you are concerned enough to set the flag, why not join this. Frankly, I want this issue settled to the satisfaction of all responsible editors and don't want to start all over again because something we didn't think of comes up. --CTSWyneken 00:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I will happily move the POV flag down. (To tell the truth, I'm embarassed that I didn't think of doing so earlier).


 * I'm afraid I must disagree with your neutrality/completeness dichotomy. The issue as it has been framed is that the exclusion of some evidence--Luther's shameful remarks--renders the section NPOV favorable.  Hence, incompleteness = NPOV.


 * If I think of something that hasn't come up I will be sure to chime in. But, in short,  I think that (1) "harsh persecution" is euphemistic, and that an outline of Luther's proposed program is appropriate, and (2) as horrible as Luther's suggested treatment of the Jews was in On the Jews and Their Lies, his remedies did not include summary execution.  Hence his earlier statment in the same document about the appropriateness of slaying the Jews is properly considered hyperbole.  If either of these points has not been discussed ad nauseum, I will be happy to paste them in the discussion.--Jbull 00:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing this. Sounds like you split the difference between the two parties might be a helpful voice. As you may note, although I wish the summary was smaller, because I hate the size of the overall article, I can live with it, providing the views of the major scholarly perspectives are heard.


 * By the way, did you find the Luther and Humanism bibliography helpful? Sorry! That's the librarian talking! 8-) --CTSWyneken 00:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I plan to read your excellent suggestions when work lets up. Thank you again.  I will peruse the discussion on the talk page and see if there is a convenient place to pipe up.--Jbull 00:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Hermann Goering
Whether or not Goering's statement is "administration-bashing" depends on the point of view of the reader. The fact remains that there is no serious challenge regarding the veracity of the quotation, and it is, contrary to your claim, quite revealing about Goering's attitude towards both power and public persuasion. It's also a well-known comment, and people coming to the article will want to know whether it's true or not. Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Luther ans Sermons on St. John

 * I've not heard it before, but it is certainly possible that he said something like that. The continuity of tradition was important to Luther, although qualified that it be a servant to the Scripture. He also was not unreasonable all of the time. His polemic style did tend to exagguration and insult, as you well know, but between the sound bites, he could be fair when he wanted to.


 * Although he didn't actually write a commentary on St. John, he did do a sermon series on John. I wouldn't make too much of the misnaming, however. Luther's classroom lectures on Biblical books amounted to commentaries and their titles are often translated "commentary."My memory was he never completed the book, but that's not reliable. I'll check it for you next week.


 * On the quote itself, do you have any kind of citation given? Without one, we have a needle in a haystack proposition. --CTSWyneken 10:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * NO problem. It's what I do for a living. --CTSWyneken 22:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Why?
Why did you just call my edit vandalism? The link was added yesterday into see also but reverted and put into the actual article itself so that it could have context. The link is one of the sentences of the article there and we agreed on the talk that for it to be linked it should have some context behind it. So please revert yourself there. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 18:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See the talk page where it says the link was put into context both editors there agreed and I agree too. And the main reason for that is does the Jesus page for example link to all controversies about Jesus? or the Buddha article to all controversies about Buddha? -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 18:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also never call an edit that is not vandalism as vandalism. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 18:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No I didn't. I had an edit conflict with Kmf164 who already reverted the vandalism by 209.43.8.150. That's why I said "rv vandalism, and article already linked see talk page". You edit was not the vandalism. -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 19:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an burnings
Why not just add a need citation tag instead of deleting the section? It's a rather important misunderstanding. Apocryphite 02:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

...Well, the thing about rumours is that they don't have an official source, in which case they would no longer be rumours. I have a source that there was a chain text message spread around in the middle east saying that danes were going to burn the koran, which never happened. I didn't make up the citation from the foreign minister either. Apocryphite 17:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Robeson and Feffer
EDIT: Removed long, intemperate screed.

Please try to understand what I'm doing
I do not want to stir up the hornet's nest over the cartoons scandal. I want Wikipedia to have a clear and rigorous censorship policy. To do this, we need to either use the cartoons test case to highlight the criterias in question that allow us to distinguish between the two, or we need to change some past cases where editor consensus gave the 'wrong' decision. Otherwise, the crazies will be all over this, and we will have to go over this again and again and again, losing credibility and neutrality every time. Wouldn't things be easier if we had an agreed upon policy or principle that we can just point to? --Fangz 02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Why the Edit War Jbull?
I notice you removed my comments about the activity on the Paul Robeson page. That's a pity. I had hoped you would meet argument with argument, but instead you go into delete mode, the same behavior you exhibit on the Robeson page. You don't make contributions. You don't add text. You don't add verifiable resources. Your only behavior is to delete the work of others. What is the basis for your hatred of Robeson? Please explain yourself. skywriter 04:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul Robeson
Could you please explain the reasons for your reverts on Talk:Paul Robeson? If we are to end this edit war with a result that is satisfactory to all parties, then it would be helpful we employed the talk page to explain our edits. Thank you. Gamaliel 05:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Epistle to the Romans
It looks like you've gotten a few complaints already, so I don't need to say much... but... instead of just deleting text, try to understand why it's there and contribute a little more. Your actions seem very malicious. (unsigned; posted by Joshuagross)

Good call, I've only had to post on a few talk pages so far. You still seem to be missing the point in Romans. I'm not just giving Paul's life story for the heck of it, there's a doctrinal point that he visits in Romans 9-11. Romans wasn't meant to be studied independent of the rest of the Bible. To say that passages in Acts or about Stephen don't fit simply because they're not in Romans is foolish. Joshuagross 22:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't think the second paragraph was necessary, okay, I can almost see that. However, there was nothing wrong with the first paragraph, especially since I defined everything using verses in Romans. If you don't think Acts is historically accurate, why bother with Romans? Paul believed Acts was historically accurate, so why is it wrong to give some background on Romans 9-11 using accounts that directly tie into the issues he's dealing with?Joshuagross 23:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My point about Acts and Romans is that they are part of the same book - the Bible. Romans is meaningless without the rest of the Bible, as is Acts. I'll leave the article as is but our disagreement stems from one thing: it seems that you do not treat the Bible as the Word of God. I find it rather pointless to deal with Romans at all (or at least something as small as quoting Acts) if you don't believe it's the Word of God, which Paul himself claims many times that Romans is (verse 1). To clarify why I say that Paul believed Acts was part of the Word of God, look at II Timothy 4:13, where Paul tells Timothy to bring him the books and parchments. II Timothy was the last book written, after which Paul (by inspiration of God, not his own opinions) organized the books of the Bible as we have them today. I don't know where you're coming from so I'd like to learn more. Cheers. Joshuagross 00:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again, why the complete reversal of what I did? The last sentence in that paragraph ("One-third of the twenty-one Christians identified in the greetings are women, an indication that women played an important role in the early church at Rome.") has NOTHING to do with the gospel transforming believers. The whole section is an interpretation of what Paul is saying anyway; why is it wrong to actually reference the verses to see what Paul is saying in Romans? If you don't want anyone to explain what Paul is saying, delete the whole article. That's what the whole article is about. It seems that you're biased against the message of Paul. Joshuagross 21:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you... I fixed the "concluding verses section". Please explain to me how my original writings were not based completely on what Paul himself wrote. Joshuagross 04:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther (Again)
Dear Jbull:

User Doright, with the backing of SlimVirgin, is trying to double list Luther in the categories of Antisemitic people and Antisemitism. This is developing into an edit war. Would you weigh in? --CTSWyneken 02:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)