User talk:KHM03/Archive 8

This is ARCHIVE 8 for my talk page....

9 Feb 06 through 2 March 06.

Christianity
Sorry, I didn't mean to revert your change. It was a mistake. I agree that "some" is better than "many." Giovanni33 20:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article "scholars generally hold..."
Would you assist it keeping this paragraph pinned in place and the footnote stuck to it long enough to discuss it on the talk page? I'm more than annoyed by this editor who stays away from the talk page while careful discussion results in a comprimise, only to have him sweep it away because he thinks the scholarly majority crazy. --CTSWyneken 01:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

POV
My addition (see here - ) to the hyper-calvinism page is no more or less POV than your taking it out. It is based on 40 years of experience and personal research among numerous groupw of evangelicals in the USA, Briton and Canada. (posted by Williamo1 10 Feb 06)

Not in violation of 3RR rule did individual edits
Not in violation of 3RR rule did individual edits 199.29.6.2 20:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Anonymous user
 * (Note: User was reported for severe violation of WP:3RR and as being a possible sockpuppet of User:192.135.227.163 and User:Kdbuffalo.) KHM03 20:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment
I'm glad you liked it. I was bored. :) Evil saltine 00:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

U2 userbox
Hi there - please could you do a fellow U2 fan a favour and stick up your 'I'm a U2 fan' userbox in with the rest on the page User:RichardHarrold.

Hi, you might like to have a look at the images on your userpage. Some, specifically the album ones are tagged in their image pages as being used on wikipedia under 'fair use' law. Wikipedia's application/interpretation of copyright law means 'fair use' images should only be used in articles (basically where the're being used for educational purposes; it is all at WP:FUC). Sorry to be a pain, but sooner or later some admin might come, rip them from your user page, and shout at you. I thought you'd like a heads-up. --Doc ask?  02:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Hyper-Calvinism
Hi. I have blocked both you and Williamo1 for 24 hours for a 3RR on Hyper-Calvinism. Please adress the problem on the talk page instead of a revert war. For details see Administrators' noticeboard/3RR -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Email sent to Chris 73:
 * Chris 73 -- I'm writing to contest the block I received.
 * As I look over the edit history at Hyper-Calvinism, I see that I reverted three times to one version without the new section by Willam01...
 * (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyper-Calvinism&oldid=38925870)
 * (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyper-Calvinism&oldid=39095117}
 * (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyper-Calvinism&oldid=39106933)
 * ...while encouraging him to add sourced, NPOV content (on talk pages).
 * When he finally added somewhat sourced content, it was WAY over the line in terms of NPOV policy. At that point, I edited his section, reducing it in size and eliminating the POV issues, but I did not simply revert or remove it.
 * Subsequent to that, Williamo1 reverted my changes to his newer POV version. At that point, I reverted three times not to the "original" version but to the newer edited version...
 * (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyper-Calvinism&oldid=39120056)
 * (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyper-Calvinism&oldid=39121861)
 * (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyper-Calvinism&oldid=39138105).
 * As I had done earlier, I stopped reverting at three, believing that going beyond that would violate Wikipedia policy. My understanding was that since there was editing going on between the reverting, and since I was reverting to the newer version, I was not violating policy. If I have violated, therefore, it was unintentional, and I certainly apologize, and I ask for a lifting of the block.
 * Additionally, I would ask two questions: Am I permitted to edit my talk page and user page while the block is in order, and may I place this correspondence on my talk page.
 * Thanks for your help; I hope this can be resolved. KHM03 11:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with KHM03. I reported Williamo1 to the 3RR board. KHM03 was very careful to state that he had made his last edit for the day to not violate 3RR. The revert war could have gone on all night, but it only stopped because KHM03 stopped it, not because Williamo1 did. Lbbzman 13:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. I got your email. The 3RR rule is not about who is right, it merely gives a time out in an edit war, trying to force the 3RR violators to discuss their dispute on the talk page instead of fighting an edit war. I do not prefer one version over the other, hence I have blocked both of you. You may also edit your talk page freely, this option is left open intentionally to allow discussion of blocks if needed. I count at least four reverts which you yourself have titled reverts  and another one where you removed (reverted) content . Hence this violated the 3RR rule, as the edits of Williamo1 were not outright vandalism. Details of the 3RR rule can be found at Three-revert rule. Again, this is not against you personally, but merely stops an edit war. Best wishes, -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with and don't like the decision, but will abide by it. KHM03 16:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that. Thank you -- Chris 73 | Talk 17:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Hi, thanks for the welcome. I've just finished a very intensive study weekend, and have my head full of things like epistemology, ontology, phenomenology and worse. It has increased my love for Anglo Saxon words! I'm still a bit flattened, as I had to make up work time today, which I had cancelled at the weekend. But if you need me for anything, just let me know. It's good to be back. And I got a barnstar in my absence. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I hadn't seen it. Interesting. Thanks for pointing it out :-) AnnH (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on Early Christianity
Thanks, I had not seen that. I guess I'm honored to be included; beyond expressing an opinion I haven't really had a chance to dig into the subject yet. My impression was that this disagreement was spill-over from a similar dispute at Byzantine empire. I'll watch the mediation page. Best, Tom Harrison Talk 23:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in a message I left for Str1977
Hi, I'm leaving the house in a few moments, so no time to send you a proper message. Please see my message on Str's talk page. Thanks. AnnH (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm personally not in favour of putting suspected sockpuppet templates on user pages based simply on similarity of POV and support given on talk pages. There was a huge backlog of RFCU requests, but I think it's beginning to clear now. A request should only be made if there's evidence of abuse, voting twice, for example, or violating 3RR. We'll see if they engage in multiple voting or in revert wars like their predecessors! By the way, I'm not completely comfortable with someone having put a sockpuppet notice on TheShriek's user page, since I don't think there's any evidence of abuse. I'm sending a message to SOPHIA about it, and I might post something on WP:AN also. Though for some reason, I've been having difficulty opening Wikipedia pages today and yesterday, and have had to abandon editing a few times.


 * Anyway, my preference would be not to put a "suspected sockpuppet" template on any newcomer's page unless there's a high degree of probability. However, I know that many Wikipedians, including some administrators that I respect a lot, disagree with me on that. AnnH (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And now we have User:Freethinker99, to say nothing of the anon who reverted just after Kecik had made his third revert. (Sigh.) AnnH (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images on user pages
Hi. Unfortunately, album covers can't be used on user pages, as they too constitute "fair use" images. You can use public domain, uncopyrighted, etc. images on your user page - check the image page for any images you'd like to use, and look at the terms of the licensing to check that they are not fair use image. Hope that helps - let me know if you're still unsure. Regards, CLW 14:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article
I've added a section to the talk page to see if we can get a consensus on what the paragraph should say. If enough of us then are satisfied, we can avoid endless debates with proponents of one view or another, revert with a polite reference to the discussion and be done with it. Everyone is invited to come. --CTSWyneken 14:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:John1838
User:John1838 looks completley inappropriate to me. It is essentially nothing more than an attack page, and the editor himself has almost no useful edits. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The editor hasn't been back in a couple of days. For now I'd ignore it. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppets
Just so you get it straight from the horses mouth - I am married to TheShriek. He doesn't have as much time to edit as I do as he runs his own company which is a pretty good thing as he's much more in the Rob camp than I am - needless to say we don't always agree at home so we were not playing games if our posts seem inconsistent. Whatever the christian view of the wife as a chattel of the husband - I have my own opinions and voice my views without reference to him (and vice versa) so we can viewed as separate editors. SOPHIA 00:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN
Have you time to go here and give an update on what has been happening? Also no harm to add a little information here. Also note that WP:SOCK says that "Proven sock puppets may be permanently blocked if used to cast double votes." Belinda and Giovanni both voted on Talk:Transubstantiation and Talk:Historicity of Jesus. Interesting also that Freethinker said on his talkpage, that he had reviewed WP:SOCK, but later said on the Christianity talk page that he didn't know what a meatpuppet was. Anyway, if you're still around, you might gather some evidence. It's quite late in Ireland, and I'd like to go to bed soon. AnnH (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know. I'm sorry that SOPHIA is upset, though, as she did nothing wrong. She seems to think that Giovanni and socks got into trouble because of his/their POV, rather than because of his/their shabby behaviour. I could swallow the husband and wife thing, if it weren't for the elaborate pretence he/they set up of having no connection to each other, even in the messages he/they sent to each other. I have removed the sockpuppet allegation from the history of SOPHIA's husband's page, by deleting the page and then restoring just the last version. AnnH (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox
How did you create those Userboxes? I would like to put some on my userpage. KitHutch 18:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Arminian comrade
Hey -

(I was about to say "hey dude" but then I realized I didn't know what gender you were) Thanks for the wiki welcome and comments about reformed arminianism. I haven't had a chance to look at the governmental atonement links you sent...hopefully I will be able to at some point. I also just added Conditional Preservation of the Saints article you'd probably enjoy reading. Took me long enough.

That's all for now David Schroder 04:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob debate
I want to take a moment to applaud your efforts in the recent trials concerning Rob. I have a great feeling that this gentleman is dead set on causing all the problems he can in Christian world (I haven't seen him active on Buddha or Mohammed). Keep up the good fight! --Avery W. Krouse 05:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please take a moment...
Because you have been involved in the Talk:Jesus conflict, I would humbly request that you view this section on Rob Steadman's talk page concerning the recent war that has transpired. I do ask that you do not edit or add to / add comment to this material for the sake of clarity and conciseness. You are free to leave any comments on my talk page if you so desire. Thank you. --Avery W. Krouse 00:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Reformed Arminianism
Hi, Keith. I'm sure you see David Schroder's recent additions to the Calvinist/Arminianism page. Could you comment on how you think we can best integrate his contributions on his talk page? Thanks! --Flex 18:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Total depravity
Another question for you at Talk:Total_depravity. --Flex 15:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision of Arminianism article
Hey man,

Based on some discussion, I feel like it'd be (1) clearer, (2) more accurate, and (3) more accessible to merge the Reformed Arminianism article into the original Arminianism article. To help accomplish this, I've created a page Arminianism (temporary) to help brainstorm a good outline, write up one section at a time, attribute correct sources and citations, and proof-read for Wikipedia compatibility before posting. If you're interested, head over there are add your thoughts. David Schroder 18:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the page to User:David_Schroder/Arminianism. See the discussion there...it will be ongoing until the page gets finished, checked, and approved. David Schroder 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Options
I haven't been quite as active the last few days... Real Life(tm) has been intruding. It looks like Sasquatch deleted John1838's user page because of how it was being used. That's certainly one option. Other possible steps in the dispute resolution process are the requests for mediation and Requests For Comments. Peace, Wesley 20:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Profanity?
I don't see what you mean, but I guess you needn't bother. Thanks anyway. Str1977 (smile back) 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

talk:Jesus
I appreciate your note, but really, there is no need to apologize. I left a brief note on the talk:Jesus page, but perhaps it was so short that it came off as curt or petulant - if that is the case it is I who have to apologize. I misunderstood your initial comment because of its placement, but it was just a misunderstanding. I would just hate to see constructive discussions cut short just because we are all tired of an extended unconstructive conversation. So, misunderstanding aside, I think we agree on the larger issue. Anyway, I do appreciate your contacting me, but even when I misunderstood your note, I wasn't taking it personally because I know you do not to the best of my knowledge ever make these debates personal. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Rob Well, some may be putting Rob's worldview on trial, but then Rob has essentially put religion on trial and rejected it. Hence the discussion has unfortunately become polarized. My analysis is meant as an attempt to better understand him and find another way to communicate with him, though I admit that I am too involved to be truly dispassionate.

We all have value judgements that do not lend themselves to rational analysis. Rob has some rather strong values, as do several others, hence the conflict. I believe true NPOV will leave such value judgements out of the discussion, as far as is humanly possible.

Rob has violated policy, others may have as well. Storm Rider, I and perhaps others have encouraged Rob to change his tactics. CTSWyekan has encouraged all of us to consider our tactics. We all need to do this, and really I am trying, though I find it challenging.Arch O. La 19:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am trying to be careful, although I realize the danger. I've also collected some advice that includes a verse near the one you quoted (although I prefer NIV). Politically, though, I believe that there has to be a third way. Only God can judge absolutely, the rest of us are relativists ;)Arch O. La 19:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Want your thoughts on Wesleyan Arminianism
Keith, see User:David_Schroder/Arminianism. I finished the Classical Arminianism section and would like your thoughts. I also want to give you the chance to write the section on Wesleyan Methodism because my understanding of that isn't very strong. Or, if you'd rather, you can give me a list of bullet points to address, I'll do the research, write it, and have you proof-read it. Enjoy, --David Schroder 17:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your eminently NPOV addition to the second sentence of paragraph two of Jesus
Hello, KHM03, I have added a motion on the Talk:Jesus concerning your helpful and NPOV addition to the second sentence of the second paragraph of the Jesus article. I don't want this to be swept under the carpet. This is something that requires action. I support your position wholeheartedly except for the keeping of the neutrality flag, but I would be amenable to the majority on even that. Kindest regards, drboisclair 00:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I gave a list of Prof. Price's credentials, not Carrier's that I remember. But the link to his review of Doherty's book, does have his credentials on the top. that link is here: Giovanni33 12:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words.
You seem to have a healthy amount of knowledge on Christianity, would you be interested in sharing this knowledge on the below forums at all? We could do with an informed opinion on certain matters relating to Jesus' teachings and early Christianity.

SPIRITUAL FORUMS

--217.39.114.137 14:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

When Rob is Back
Just a reminder: do not respond to Rob at all if he repeats old arguments or gets abusive. If he changes a consensus paragraph, revert it. Keep track of your reverts and only do it twice. If we co this, nothing will come of it except frustration. --CTSWyneken 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Beatles7.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Beatles7.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 11:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Close to finishing Arminianism update
User:David_Schroder/Arminianism

I still haven't written anything about Wesley, either from a historical or doctrinal perspective. I'm going to do that in the next few days, but I figured I'd leave it open for you as long as possible (since you're a methodist, and I'm not)

To do still:
 * citations for theology / comparison sections
 * further reading
 * categories, languages, external links, and other last-minute stuff

I'd love your thoughts, David Schroder 21:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Fast One being pulled on Jesus talk
Quorum call. Come and vote. --CTSWyneken 00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob re:Personal suggestion
Nice try, but I feel that Rob's too different from us to meaningfully discuss religion or even Athiesm. That's why I've decided to disengage with him on that point. To a Lutheran like myself, faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit, so in the end it's not up to us, but up to God. You know what they say: pray for a miracle, but do not expect one. We might make some progress with the historicity paragraph if we all stop butting our heads together. Are we humans, or are we rams? That's not a criticism of you, but rather of the ongoing debate. I'll ask you the same question I asked CTSWynekan: which circle of Hell is reserved for eternal ineffectual voting? Arch O. La 19:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny about the circle of hell thing. Seriously, though, it just seems to me that the bulk of Rob's conversations on the various talk pages not only violate WP rules such as WP:CIV (which usually seems to happen when he's got no evidence and runs out of things to say/contribute), but demonstrate a tremendous misunderstanding of theism and atheism...almost as if he's tried to not know very much about the issues.  I was hoping that if he could recognize what these belief systems were really all about, he might be more friendly, less likely to violate policy, and become a more fruitful editor.  Perhaps I was incorrect, but it seemed worth a try.  KHM03 19:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if you remember when Rob first came on the scene, both I and Slrubenstein tried to engage Rob on Athiesm vs Theism as a philosophies, and Rob simply refused to participate. I tried my best and found it unproductive to continue the discussion. It took me a while to understand that when Rob says he utterly rejects faith, he means it quite literally&mdash;but he holds very strong convictions. Any violations of WP:CIV and other policies should be held quite separately from that. Remember what you yourself said: let's not make this look like an inquisition. Or a cabal, for that matter.
 * I did, however, have some interesting discussions with SOPIA on philosophy (and Carl Sagan and C.S. Lewis). Arch O. La 20:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: I actually agree with your stance on faith and rationality, but have found it wise simply to acknowledge Rob's stance and move on. This is too much like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin--it makes no sense if you have no concept of "angel" or "pin" beyond the language construct. (My symbolic interactionism class is showing...) Arch O. La 20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think therefore...
I appreciate the point you are trying to make - I completely agree that I cannot say that the supernatural does not exists - all we can ever reliably comment on is the knowledge we personally have at anyone time - all else is hearsay. Everything we say is POV as that is all we really have. I probably have more time for Rob than most because he may not say it very eloquently sometimes but all he is saying is present all the arguments but attribute them to known sources - very wikipedian infact - let the reader know what POV the writer has as this will inevitably affect what they have written. Look at the fun and games we have deciding on the levels of proof required or the acceptability of someones academic background - all coloured by POV - the writers we are arguing over are themselves no different. If you have any experience of academia I'm sure you'll recognise the parallels. This is not casting them as bad academics - just human. Even experimental and theoretical scientific ideas fall out of favour only to be ressurected because some new experiment has shown previous explanations to be based on incorrect or incomplete assumptions. At least science is forward looking and self correcting rather than retrospective and self enforcing (one of my main problems with accepting the dogmas of the churches). Agnosticism is not humble - it is intellectually dishonest in my view - either you know something or you don't. To say "I don't know what I can know" invalidates any rational thought at all.

I have always said if I had the personal evidence of St Thomas or St Paul I would be a Christian. I am an atheist at this moment as I have no knowledge of the divine. I am always open minded and do not assume I have all the answers. New information (i.e. supernatural experience) will mean I have to rethink everything which I would do. To just go along with it all in case I'm wrong (as has been suggested to me many times) is intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind. If god is what he is described by the christians to be, he would know my reasons and condem me for them. I always say that if I am wrong then I hope I get "brownie points" for being honest.

As a scientist I am used to having to explain everything from first principles referencing all assumptions made. I appreciate that this technique applied to someones beliefs may seem aggressive or as an attempt to pull it to pieces. It is not meant to be - just an attempt to put a jigsaw together saying where all the pieces were found. If we take this approach to the article then we do the best job - we present all the information and give the reader all the links to verify or follow up for more information if they choose.

Archola does have a very good point. Just because we say the same words does not mean we speak the same language. SOPHIA 21:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Es difícil comunicarse cuando usted no habla la misma lengua. Now imagine what that sounds like to someone who doesn't know Spanish ;)Arch O. La 23:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That wasn't quite what I meant :-) SOPHIA 23:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Close enough that I got my point across. KHM03 did say "point taken" on my talk page. Besides, I've been waiting for quite a while to use that phrase...in any language. Arch O. La 23:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Bible Contradictions
Why do you want to delete the article. I believe that i wrote it with an NPOV, if you disagree, explain to me how, or edit it to NPOV. If you believe it contains original research (i dont), tell me exactly which parts and i will provide sources. If you have another objection put it in the discussion. Crippled Sloth 23:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Re Catholic Bible Contradictions
Why does a summary of scriptural, protestant objections to the catholic dogma not pass muster? If it is seen as biased, then a catholic rebuttal can be added. The style isnt great at the moment, but its a work in progress. Why not recomend additions as opposed to deletions. Im new to wikipedia. In future, should i prepare complete articles before submitting them to judgement? Crippled Sloth 23:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Update to Arminianism completed
Just a heads up. Check out the new place, I think you'll like it. David Schroder 04:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've also put this up for peer review. I'd like to work towards featured status. I'm don't know many other users who would find this article up their alley - if you know of any, could you let them know? David Schroder 16:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Raisinman
Hi, KHM03. I don't like to jump in, as there may be some background knowledge on this issue which I don't have, but I'm a bit concerned at the haste at which Raisinman has had vandal warnings and sockpuppet notices placed on his talk page. I fully agree that this edit summary was inappropriate, but I'm wondering how appropriate it was to make those warnings and sockpuppet accusations in the first place.

When I right click on


 * His contributions and
 * His talk page history

so that I can open them in separate windows and see them side by side, and I see what edits he had made at the stage that he was given each warning, I just don't think that there was justification for the accusations.

Concerning the removal of warnings from his talk page, yes, that may be bad form, but isn't it bad form to send this to a brand new user who has done nothing worse than this and this? (They were the only two edits he had made at that stage.) Also, he has been accused of vandalism, and I can't see any examples of vandalism. That word is not supposed to be used for POV edits, even very misguided ones.

I remember some time ago, a new admin posted warnings to user's talk page. The user kept removing them, and the admin blocked him for 3RR. His block was undone by Kelly Martin from the arbitrtation committee, who ticked him off in what I found an unnecessarily humiliating way. Then David Gerard posted something on one of the admin noticeboards, saying that if someone removes something from his talk page, we know that he has seen it, so there is absolutely no purpose in repeatedly putting it back except to hassle that user.

I'm not going to remove those notices from his talk page unless I hear from you, because I feel sure there's something more to this than I'm aware of. Besides, I trust you. :-) But if you get a chance, perhaps you'd take a look at his contributions, and see if you really think that accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry against a brand new user were warrented. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 12:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind, I'm going to comment here so that we can all discuss it. I've looked at all of his edits and analyzed them:
 * 1) Very suspiciously, Raisinman's very first edit was to remove an external link to a site that's critical of Jason Gastrich. This is clearly deserving of a revert, though I didn't consider it intentional vandalism at the time.  Of course, it's entirely consistent for a sock puppet of Jason's to start here.
 * 2) Then he replaces an internal Wikilink to Henry Morris with a stealth external link to that same entry on CreationWiki . This is nasty vandalism, especially since a user clicking on it might not immediately notice that they've left Wikipedia and entered the twisted mirror world of a partisan Wiki.
 * 3) After I cleaned these two things up (but before I noticed the full nastiness of his external redirect), I left a reasonably polite note on his Talk page. His response is to immediately blank it.
 * 4) He really liked the trick of externally linking to Morris' page on CreationWiki, so he reverts my fix with the misleading message "link to bio".
 * 5) At this point, I notice what he's up to and write a more pointed message on his Talk page. He blanks it with "removed rubbish".
 * 6) I revert, he counter-reverts.
 * 7) He goes back and once again deletes the external link that knocks Gastrich.
 * 8) In a clear sign of sockpuppetry, he jumps right into the ongoing debate on Jesus and votes to remove all mention that Jesus' historicity is questioned by some. How many new users vote?
 * 9-13) He continues debating about Jesus, coincidentally remembering to use the four tildes, just as an experienced user might. In all these posts, he shows extremely strong bias in favor of the traditional Christian view, with an American fundie flavor.
 * 14) Then he spreads his wings and unilaterally removes a POV tag from Christianity.
 * 15) On Criticism of the Catholic Church, he adds a link to Protestantism. This suggests that he's a protestant, which is consistent with the idea that he's an American fundie.
 * 16) He makes a GOOD, if minor, change on Orthodoxy (book). How many new users fix wikilinks?
 * 17-19) He inserts the idea that C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity is a classic work in Christian apologetics. This is an odd and highly partisan view, which says a lot about him.  As I'm not a regular editor there and it wasn't clear vandalism, I let it stay.
 * 20-24) Edit war to blank my comments on his Talk page. Note that, in his comments, he calls me an "atheist loser".  Twice.  Gotta love that civility.  I won't even comment on how he jumped to the conclusion that I'm an atheist.  I guess that anyone who doesn't love Jesus as much as he does must be an infidel.
 * 25-28) Back on Jesus, he writes more comments in defense of historicity, with an impolite comment about the undue influence of extreme atheists (none of whom are identified).
 * And that's what he's done so far. Looks to me like he's not a brand new user and is definitely a vandal.  As for being a sockpuppet, there's sufficient support for this accusation to justify running a checkuser on him. Alienus 16:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree; we should have him checked, although it won't necessarily prove anything. The reason I suspected Kdbuffalo was the he was involved on the Inerrancy page for a while doing the same kind of thing, and has had a monstrous history at Biblical scientific foreknowledge, one of Wikipedia's most bizarre and creepiest articles, IMHO. On the talk page there, and in edit summaries, he was often seen "atheist bashing".  Kdbuffalo (Ken) may be much better behaved nowadays, so I don't want to jump to conclusions.  Ann is 100% correct in that we never welcomed Raisinman properly, so I think we're guilty of that.  But...it's quite likely that he's a sock, probably of Jason Gastrich.  Not sure how to proceed.  KHM03 18:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * PS - Alienus...the Lewis book is pretty much considered a classic of apologetics, though it's also much more than that. KHM03 18:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's partially my fault: I need to learn how to use the right templates. There's something to be said for formalities.
 * As for the identity of Raisinman, I can see a case for either Kdbuffalo or Jason. The former just recently erased the entire "Criticisms of Christian apologetics" section on Christian apologetics, so I'm not sure that his behavior is much improved.  And the latter... well, he's not going to change.  There's also some reason to suspect any of the more extreme pro-Jesus partisans from Jesus, given the participation in voting.  Rather than guess, let's see what checkuser yields.
 * As for Lewis, he has a very mixed reputation as an apologist. My POV is that he excelled at preaching to the choir, but was incapable of speaking persuasively to non-Christians.  For example, his trilemma is founded on assumptions shared by Christians, hence entirely ineffective outside of those circles.  In fact, professional Christian apologists have sometimes been critical of him because of these limitations.  For these reasons, his high reputation as an apologist is very limited to those who already agree with him.  This is why I called that view "odd and highly partisan"; because it's so revealing.  Anyhow, while I might not agree with that POV, it's not vandalism and I didn't remove it. It's just helpful in understanding the man behind the mask.
 * Back to Raisinman, I just have to say that his involvement has increased my disgust with the goings-on in Jesus. Alienus 18:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that, and it's too bad. I think that most of the folks involved with that article mean well, but one or two on both sides just seem to want to take incivility and silliness to a new level.  I've backed off a bit for now from that article (hey, it's Lent...I'm backing off a bit from the whole Wiki-thing).  KHM03 18:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said on CTSWynekan's talk page, these are the souls that try men's times. Which is only to point out the fallacy in blaming the people rather than the process. Two sides? My own political philosophy is that there are greater than or equal to three sides to every story. ;) Arch O. La 18:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * He's Ken, not Jason. The give-away is that kdbuffalo has mentioned writing articles on that Creationism Wiki that Raisinman redirected to.  I'm at 90% confidence. Alienus 19:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Until there is a checkuser result, let's not take this any further. Remember SOPHIA, and Deskana for beginners.Gator (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't plan on pursuing it ''at all'. KHM03 21:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the red flag over the Persecution section in Christianity
Thank you for removing the flag. I think that there should be a policy regarding these flags 1) that they only be put on by identified editors and 2) that those that put them on have the burden of proving that they are justified. I think that you have always gone the extra mile to insure that these articles are NPOV. Looking at your user page I see that you and I have something in common. We are both ordained clergy. I remember another pastor telling me that this world is like the world just before the Reformation, but I think that the world today is like the time of the first century, pagan and unbelieving. Your fellow WP ed, drboisclair 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that I have done harm in simply dismissing Giovanni and Robsteadman, who are a Jesus-Myth scholars, out of hand. I was unaware that there are reputable people who are questioning our Lord's existence as an historical person. Just ignoring them will only introduce the return the stigma of the POV flags. As a pnemonic device I put a few POV flags on some of the atheist scholars to see how they like it. When there are scholars laboring desperately to render articles NPOV they should not be flagged. I find that I am possibly in fervent opposition to the atheists, but I have to oppose them with respect and having all my ducks in line. drboisclair 16:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

:Robeaston99
Right, they might just be friends. After all, when Rob (Steadman) objected to what he perceived as the Christian cabal stuffing the ballot box, Rob was told that he, too, could bring in outside votes if he so wished. From my limited time on Wikipedia, it looks like accusations of sockpuppetry are thrown around far too easily. Of course, I don't know KDBuffalo.

Right now, it looks like the vote at Talk:Jesus is going to be pretty evenly split. What then?Arch O. La 18:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We stick with what we've got now until someone comes up with a better idea. It'll be important for those of us who don't like it to stay away from edit wars.  KHM03 18:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Amen. Edit wars are a path to the Dark Side (see my Star Wars allegory on my user page). Arch O. La 19:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Mary Monnett Bain
I have reverted your removal of the catagory "Methodism" from Mary Monnett Bain, and I feel that my point is valid in keeping her included in that catagory.

Bain was not simply a follower of the M.E. church, she was a person who literally gave up her chosen hapiness for the what she believed was the good of the church. Her donations to what is now Ohio Wesleyan University afforded generations of women to have a place to live while they were attending a school affiliated with the Methodist Church. Bain is still held up as an example for her sacrifices for the good of higher education and the church. If you were raised in the Methodist faith in Ohio up until the late 1960s, Bain's sacrifices to the church were held up as an example to follow (although they never delved into the politicals of it). So to call this woman simply a Methodist is to degrade her acts were as inconsquential as dropping a dollar in the collection plate on Sunday.

Before removing her again, I hope you will reflect on what it means to serve the United Methodist Church, to sacrifice for the cause of spreading Methodism, and see how this woman gave of herself to the church throughout her life. Stude62 20:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (Note: response is found at Talk:Mary Monnett Bain)