User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 13

The Bible
Hey, how can we come to concensus on the Bible page? Work with me. It's an important page with lots of hits. It's disorganised and not worthy for a featurd article right now. Lets fix it together. Don't get insulting or insulted though, lets just address the problems, agreed? To hit your concerns:

First off.. find citation that Jewish people use the term "Bible" to refer to the TNK.

Second.. what do you propose happen to the "Old Testament" section. It obviously needs an overhaul but almost all of the info would be a direct copy of the "Hebrew Bible" section. what's your propoal on how to fix this?

side note.. read through the Tanakh page again. It could clarify. Peace --Home Computer 16:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Also reviewing Old Testament might help too. I'm trying to get us to come to a consensus on this through commonly agreed info. Peace. --Home Computer 16:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Hebrew BibleHas something to say regarding term usage too. Thanks man. --Home Computer 16:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Userpages
Slurb, why are you travelling from user page to user page, misrepresenting the issues instead of talking it out peacefully? The article now has a pleasantly npov ring to it and represents accurately the definitions that are held by Christians, Jews and others. But NOW you have to deal with the people you've stirred up. The real issue has allready been solved please increase the peace. --Home Computer 22:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semetci Comments
Rubenstein your comments on Bible have been very insulting. It's not helpful to make racist remarks and acusations. It's also a serious violation. Please stop. --Home Computer 14:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Userpage comments regarding the Bible
Rubenstein why on earth are you going from talk page to talk page to misrepresent me STILL? If we talk about the subject and come to peaceful conclusions, whya re you stirring up trouble all over wiki? I agree that the term Bible is used by Judaism sometimes to refer to the TNK. This was explained and discussed appropriately.. and you allready acknowledged that this happened in other conversations yet you STILL go to talk pages and make false claims.. Why are you trying to cause trouble? --Home Computer 15:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is very funny:

11:12, 17 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:IZAK (→bible)

11:09, 17 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Avraham (the Good Book) 11:06, 17 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rickyrab (the Good Book) (top) 11:04, 17 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Humus sapiens (The Good Book)

11:03, 17 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:MPerel (→The Good Book) (top)

11:03, 17 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Jmabel (The Good Book)

11:01, 17 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:TShilo12 (the Good Book) (top)

11:01, 17 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Shykee (The Good Book) (top)

10:59, 17 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:RK (the Good Book) (top)

10:58, 17 October 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Shirahadasha (the Good Book)

These are all the warnings you've posted to stir up trouble.. why all the slander? --Home Computer 15:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks 2nd warning
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

You've used racist language against me multiple times now, insulted my character and called me a troll. It's not kind and it's not productive. As noted earlier, if someone doesn't understand something you don't write a scathing review of their character, you explain the problem to them, which others have succesfully done to the resolution of the issue. --Home Computer 20:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the kind words. It is true that we have different views at times, but I have always appreciated the spirit of collegiality that you bring to discussions, and I think that, so long as there is a mutual willingness to be reasonable, that differing views ultimately strengthen contributions to an article. To speak personally in relation to this article, I have been interested in the Jewish heritage present in my Catholic faith, and I look up to the stance of the last Holy Father who described the Jewish people as "our ancestors in faith". I realize that I do not belong to the chosen people by blood, but I am thankful that, by God's grace, I have the opportunity to call myself a son of Abraham by faith. I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. Lostcaesar 21:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus
I was just wondering, since you've always seemed to be in the know about what goes on concerning scholar type things about Christianity and Jesus, if you could find the time to comment on the ongoing dispute at Historicity of Jesus. We have this one guy here who insists on including a "disclaimer" of sorts near the top of the article cited with a reference from one Earl Doharty, stating that "Many critics" or whoever feel that because most scholars "personal religion" predisposes them to a belief in Jesus, that therefore it is very notable that "many people" see the conclusions reached by mainstream scholarship as basically worthless. I think he's violated 3RR already but nobody warned him or anything, so I was just wondering if you might have something to say :/. Homestarmy 23:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I warned him for 3RR, and when he tried to justify his edits on my talk page and went on to reverted again, I reported him (not sure if he will get a blocking though).--Andrew c 04:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

3rd warning personal attacks
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Home Computer 13:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So far it has been about 24 hours and you have not reverted the introduction back to your version. I take this as a good sign. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for support
Slrubenstein thanks for your support which also precipitated others to my aid on the Talk:Evolution. My frustration may have prematurely influenced my Talk page. I don't understand Graft or Rolands resistance to a topic that Science, Nature, and books entertain and deem worthy of comment. I appreciate and encourage their contributions and comments, but they seem somewhat territorial at times. We will see what develops.GetAgrippa 18:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Race
Wow. I think it'll take me a week just to sort through the change :( Guettarda 14:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks again for your helpful comments on the Ebionites peer review. We tried our best to incorporate your ideas. I hope you will consider participating in the next review if the article is nominated as a Featured Article. Ovadyah 05:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the recommendations. I have just heard from James Tabor, and he is also interested in reviewing the article. Ovadyah 16:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Noahide Laws
Hi, please join in the discussion on the Noahide Laws talk page about cleaning it up etc. Thanks! Chavatshimshon 08:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian
Hello. This legal case, Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, illustrates that the term "Judeo-Christian" remains a legal concept which still has significant meaning in American law. As a result, the term has a societal reality behind it which cannot simply be dismissed just because one might disagree with it. This is a little bit different from the situation with the Judaism and Christianity article. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cite and fact check request on Judaism's view of Jesus
There is a quote on that article that:
 * Some Jewish scholars note that though Jesus is said to have used the phrase "my Father in Heaven" (cf. Lord's Prayer), this common poetic Jewish expression may have been misinterpreted as literal.

This reminds me strongly of the rather more solid comment on Cultural and historical background of Jesus that:
 * Psalms 2: 7 and 89: 26–27 refer to David as the son of God; most interpret the word "son" in these contexts metaphorically, in accordance with usual ancient Hebrew poetic style, to mean that God loved David and that there would be a descendant of David who would be as a son to God, either spiritually, or in terms of love, or pleasing to God, rather than literally. Geza Vermes has argued that the term "son of God" was often used to refer to the monarch.

Both citations ("father" and "son") and how they have been interpreted by scholars, seem relevant to the section in Judaism's view of Jesus. Can you expand and cite that part of the article? Thanks. FT2 (Talk 15:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dispute need contributions
I have added a section on insititutional racism and it is being deleted by a tag team of editors. I would like more voices to resolve this issue as i dont think it is very fair for work to be deleted without a plural discussion.Talk:Racism (section) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Evolution Article
Hello Slrubinstein, I was a witness to the vast changes in the evolution article. Once it started it was like a wild fire. In fact, I saw it coming and tried (and failed-oddly phrased and hyperlinked on Dec 8)to improve the first paragraph. After Adam's changes, I realized the experts have had their say it seems appropriate to let the novices have ago. I wrote to Roland and Graft with this sentiment, but also my apprehensions-that it is too simplestic, may lead to misconceptions, not neccessarily improved where it is good, and this method of rapid and bulky changes will start a stampede (which it has). Roland is studying for exams, but dropped in enough to say he hated all the changes. I have been trying to be supportive of their effort, but hoping all the expert editors who gave me a hard time would resurface to defend the merits of the original article. I thought the first paragraph did need some attention, but I thought minor edits would ensue not vast rewrites. This could go on forever. Why can't an article be protected at certain stage so Talk could continue but changes would go before a committee to decide whether the change or addition is warranted (keep it current). I actually wrote a section for Evodev a few weeks ago, but never added it. I was concentrating on a couple of good examples, but now I realize a better way. There is some movement in embryology and developmental biology which is good. Fill does have some good editing for a Simple:evolution article. Isn't there a wikipedia for kids also? Although I wanted to change or add to the original, it was an excellent and informative article. It has been a week since the major overhaul so now maybe it is time to critique. GetAgrippa 15:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a version of Wikipedia for children and others, the Simple Wikipedia. I have put a link from the Introduction to evolution article to the even more elementary Simple Wikipedia article on evolution.  The Simple Wikipedia articles in general need more work. They are difficult because they assume a very limited vocabulary. I think that Wikipedia is considering "pushing" to the web only a version of the articles that have been determined to be reasonably stable while allowing editors to still edit an active version. This will hopefully reduce the chance that a casual user will encounter vandalism or an unstable version of an article. I think this sounds like an intriguing idea. Apparently the German version of Wikipedia has been experimenting with this idea for a while. I am not sure how it is working out, however. Although I am in favor of having a simple introductory paragraph or two to most articles so the average person can understand what the article is about, this might not be possible to achieve on evolution. As I have said several times, I think that trying the approach that is used at chemistry and physics with a short lead and an introduction section are worth considering. This makes for two introductions, it is true, but as I have said repeatedly, there is plenty of precedent for this in professional publications, with abstracts, introductions, executive summaries, overviews, etc.--Filll 15:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Color scheme on User Page
Please be sure to see my comment on your User Page! I DO MEAN "on your User Page" (literally). :) Cgingold 16:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, even though I still haven't gotten around to designing my own user page yet, I took up the challenge and devised a new color scheme for yours. While you were sleeping, my little elves got to work and replaced that garish, eye-damaging green background with a lovely shade of beige. (You can never go wrong with beige.) The colored text is now (mostly) a bold shade of brown, as is the new, expanded border. Your secondary box got its own makeover, and a newly re-spelled version of "corollary" — at no extra charge. Hope this meets your approval! :) Cgingold 11:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * p.s. - Ce n'est pas un chapeau...

I know you have been here forever
I know you are an old hand and I am a novice, a newbie. I gladly acknowledge all this. I do not understand why you have decided I am your enemy however. I am interested in consensus and compromise. I have been kicked in the shins several times in our exchanges however, and I am doing my best to restrain myself while still defending myself. If you copied, I do not care. No big deal. I do not see how or where you copied, but I might of course be mistaken. I would be quite surprised if it is true, however. I am willing to be surprised however.--Filll 16:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you say you may be mistaken that I did not copy, when I explicitly said I never copied, and when no one ever accused me of copying - except you? Why do you keep stirring the pot, implying I may have plagiarized?


 * I assume that you left messages for me on my talk page because you want me to respond, although it is unclear what kind of response you want as you do not ask questions. For now, i will respond to your claim that I consider you an enemy and have kicked you in the shins.


 * The first time I ever addressed you was after you made considerable changes to the fact and theory section. I wrote "While I appreciate the effort, I think you vastly oversimplified and this will cause confusion for many readers. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)" which was polite and concise.  I also changed "words" to "concepts."  Your response was to say that you meant words, not concepts.  I did not respond to your phrasing at the time but let me say now that I do not consider that a meaningful or engaging response.  I assumed that you meant words.  i did not change "words" to concepts because I thought you did not write what you meant - because I do not see it as my task to limit my edits to what you intended to write.  in fact, I think it is a little insulting to suggest that when I make an edit I am bound by what you intended in your own edit.  I am generally not concerned with other editors' intentions and I do not assume they are concerned with mine because nothing here is personal.  There is a text - the article - which has no author or owner, and which is the product of an ongoing collaboration.  I assume people make changes that they think improve the article.  I make changes that I think will improve the article.  Sometimes people have different ideas of what improves the articles.  You stated your reasons and I stated mine (13:15, 15 December 2006).  I did not think your reasons were insulting to me; I certainly did not think my reasons were in any way insulting to you. You responded by asserting that "Well I mean the word "word"."  I interpreted this to be an assertion of your intentions, which I further interpreted as a sign that you felt some ownership over the article (if you didn't, why would intentions matter?) or that you thought I thought that I "owned" the article in the sense that my intentions had priority.  So I responded by saying this was my interpretation and that neither of us own the article.  You also responded by explaining that you found fault with Gould's phrasing.  So I responded by calling attention to our NOR and NPOV policies - what we think of verifiable sources is not relevant to articles, it is not for us to judge whether a source is right or wrong (all we can do is look for other sources if we think that one source represents only one among many points of view.  I do not see how any of my responses at this point could be injurious to you.  Let me also point out that you wrote "If you are still having trouble, I would be glad to bring in other editors to help you understand" I didn't respond to it at the time but now that you are bringing up your hurt feelings (or shins) let me say that seems like pretty patronizing phrasing to me.  You also wrote "As I think about the discussion here, it seems to me that either you are not a native English speaker, and then this problem you are having is understandable." which is also patronizing, although I did not respond to it directly because I was more concerned with the quality of the article than my feelings.  Let me know say that it seems to me that you were defensive and hostile from the start.  I do not believe I was.


 * You then went into a lengthy critique of Gould (irrelevant, as I stated earlier) as well as wording I introduced (which is fair and I did not rebuke or criticize), and also mentioned your four degrees and appealed to your authority (irrelevant, I certainly have never appealed to my own training as an authority in this discussion). Around that time GetAgrippa commented "Slrubinstein's changes are in line with the original article which was a herculean (of dozens of editors) effort to produce." - which I interpreted to mean that I was restoring work that many others had contributed to, which is indeed what I had done.  Your response was " I am not sure Slrubinstein's single-handed revision in a few minutes in a fit of pique is comparable to a hurculean effort of dozens of editors." in which you (1) disregard the fact that much (I admit not all) of what I restored was the result of many people's contributions over the years and not just my own view, and (2) characterized my intentions in bad faith, as the result of a fit of pique rather than my desire to improve the article.  Again, I did not respond - I think it would be bitchy for me to respond to each and every attempt you make to insult me.  My next response was this:
 * We have a "simple" wikipedia for such things. But Wikipedia proper is an encyclopedia first and formost and we cannot compromise on the quality. A complex topic is goiong to require exposition of what makes it complicated. It is ill-served by oversimplifying. for example, to say that "theory is an explanation of facts" is a vast, vast simplification and really just not accurate. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I see nothing insulting to you personally in this comment. I stand by every sentence in it still.


 * At 13:54, 16 December 2006 I explained my problems with the new introduction to the article. I made no derrogatory comments about you, I simply expressed my disagreement.


 * I then responded to a suggestion of Axel's, and explained that my original description of "theory" came from Hawking - not that I copied him, just that I drew on him. I indicated that many others had worked on the passage, rewording it.  I recommended that Axel look at the source.  You then responded, "If this is true, then I am stunned. I have to verify this. THAT WORDING THAT SLRUBENSTEIN USED CAME FROM HAWKING? On evolution? ... But if the wording in SlRubenstein's contributed text was lifted or plagiarized from Hawking,"  Now let me point out three things, Filll: first, you seem to be interested in creating a feud by expressing that you are stunned and using capital words.  Second, you seem to be stunned that I drew on Hawking concerning evolution when I was looking to him for an account of theory - you seemed to be distorting what I had done.  Then it was you - you, you alone, you not me - who introduced the vile charge of plagiarism.


 * GetAgrippa then wrote, "Fill you seem to have an accusatory tone or question Slrubenstein" which is certainly accurate. Your response was "Well I do not believe Slrubenstein was particularly wikipolite to me, so he/she set the tone" which I do not think is true at all, I do not think that in any previous statement of mine I was ever, ever impolite to you.  You then go on to write "I am doing my best to remain professional in this matter" which I must say I believe is blatantly false.  You accused me of editing in a fit of pique rather than with good motives (I never questioned your motives), you suggested I was not a native speaker of English (I think you express yourself horrendously but make no assumptions about your native language, in fact this is the first time I have ever expressed my view on your use of English, I never made this kind of ad homeneim remark, which you so seem to favor, on the Evolution talk page) and condescendingly and patronizingly suggested I need help to understand your edits, and you used capital letters expressing your stunned feelings and suggested I plagiarized.


 * My response was to apologize if I unintentionally hurt your feelings. You did not accept my apology, you just continued to write in your own defensive manner, reeking of contempt for me.


 * Filll, if you think this is professional behavior; if you think I have "kicked you in the shins" or have been impolite to you, all I can say is this: you may need medication, you probably need therapy. I do not think I have anything more to say to you. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My goodness. Maybe it has to be pointed out to you explicitly? I am not sure it is worthwhile, given this response. You want me to do the same to you? You want me to document your comments blow by blow? Come on, surely you are not unaware ? I will if you want me to. All that this will do is create more conflict. But thanks anyway. I think I am starting to undestand your approach.

My English might very well be atrocioius. I might very well be deranged. I would humbly suggest that we let others decide on that. I do not think you want to open this can of worms, because it is not constructive or productive to sling mud. I only suggested you might not be a native English speaker when I was trying to bend over backwards to understand your edits and your actions. I might very well be mistaken. I do not think that comment is particularly negative, considering the vast majority of people on the face of the earth are not native speakers of English. Most people who speak English are not native English speakers, I believe. If that was out of line, I apologize. If my trying to improve the "fact vs. theory" section is inappropriate since it is your personal preserve, I again apologize. I would suggest that the repeated complaints and tags on the "fact vs. theory" sections that have existed for months on end might have been a signal that some people might not have found them satisfactory. However, those malcontents might very well be deranged and irrational and stupid, right? And speak atrocious English to boot ! Well I admit this is a possibility, but I would classify it as a low probability event. I apologize if the word "plagiarism" offended you. However, I would be glad to submit the discussion to someone else to examine why I might have misunderstood, but I do not think this is necessary. I will assist you in this matter if you want to pursue it however. And when I reviewed the evidence, I said repeatedly that I believed it was not true that this section was plagiarized (although I have found evidence that other material written on this topic is indeed plagiarized, but I am not prepared to make the charge formal since I do not believe it is (a) important or (b) helpful). I said that your contribution was not plagiarized as clearly as I know how. What did I not make clear in this matter? It certainly appears that you were trying to stand on the authority of Hawking. Maybe you were not, but it certainly gives that impression. The more you disagree, the more it raises the profile of the question in some minds. I would suggest that you might not want to make a larger issue of this. But feel free if you believe it will help you...For someone who has nothing to say to me, you certainly have taken a number of snide snipes at me.

Look, I have nothing against you. You are free to try to keep your favorite version of the "fact vs. theory" section that you wrote and feel quite attached to, obviously. If the consensus is that this is the right course of action, I will not fight you on that. It is not worth it. I would suggest that it is not really up to you personally, but I will go along with the consensus if the consensus is that your version is the most useful and the clearest. In fact, why not just revert the section to your previous version that lasted for months or years? And let's just leave it as you like it for time being. I would only request that other editors be consulted about this to see what they think, since no one really owns the article, even though you started it. --Filll 17:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"For now, i will respond to your claim that I consider you an enemy and have kicked you in the shins." I am trying to resolve this apparent dispute where you feel I have tred on your own personal turf of that "fact and theory" section. I concede that I might have offended you somehow by trying to change it. I apologize for this. I understand you might have had your feelings hurt when someone claimed your writing was unclear. I am very sorry for that. We had a notice on the talk page for several days asking for people to address this. The corresponding fact vs. theory section in the controversy article also had a tag/notice on it that it was hard to undestand, for a long time. I talked to a good half dozen editors before making any changes. Many of them modified the text that I proposed for this section. I asked for comments before putting it in the article and after. I was not trying to make some surreptitious attack on a section or pair of sections that were universally regarded as examples of clear exposition.--Filll 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"i did not change "words" to concepts because I thought you did not write what you meant - because I do not see it as my task to limit my edits to what you intended to write." If you believed that the word concepts made sense, then that is fine. You clearly do appear to believe the word concepts made sense. When I tried to explain it to you, and engage you in discussion, you declined and instead just dropped a bomb on the section and reverted most of it back to your own previous version. At that point, I realized a bit more what was going on and I decided an edit war was not what was called for.--Filll 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"in fact, I think it is a little insulting to suggest that when I make an edit I am bound by what you intended in your own edit." I am sorry you are insulted, and I am sorry you assumed this, which I assure you is incorrect. Many editors have caught mistakes and errors in my drafts and that is what makes Wikipedia a useful and unique site. All my claim is that what you wrote does not make sense. I tried to get you to explain to me how and why it made sense, and you just took an aggressive response instead. Ok fair enough. That is the kind of person you are. I accept that. It is quite telling.--Filll 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"I am generally not concerned with other editors' intentions and I do not assume they are concerned with mine because nothing here is personal." No of course not. Obviously. In all senses of the word.--Filll 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

" I interpreted this to be an assertion of your intentions, which I further interpreted as a sign that you felt some ownership over the article (if you didn't, why would intentions matter?) or that you thought I thought that I "owned" the article in the sense that my intentions had priority." You clearly exhibit some feelings of ownership. I accept that. You started the article. You clearly wrote this section and are somewhat attached to many of the phrases and wording. I understand. No need to be defensive. My only objection to the change of the word "word" to the word "concept" is that it makes no sense in that form. However, I am glad to submit this to an outside party if you feel it is necessary. It is all somewhat moot since when you reverted most of the section back to your previous preferred version, you made it clear what your intentions are. And I am not blind. I can see what is going on.--Filll 18:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"it is not for us to judge whether a source is right or wrong (all we can do is look for other sources if we think that one source represents only one among many points of view." Of course not. And that is why I realize that the only answer to this is copious and painstaking scholarship. As I have stated repeatedly. And I am not the only one who has problems with Gould, as I could demonstate in detail. Gould is open to misinterpretation. And Gould contradicts himself, and the others in his field. This confusion clearly leaves an immense opening for detractors of evolution to exploit, IMHO.--Filll 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"I do not see how any of my responses at this point could be injurious to you." None of it is injurious to me. As I said before, if the consensus is that the article should retain your preferred wording, then so be it. I don't care.--Filll 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Let me also point out that you wrote "If you are still having trouble, I would be glad to bring in other editors to help you understand" I didn't respond to it at the time but now that you are bringing up your hurt feelings (or shins) let me say that seems like pretty patronizing phrasing to me." I am sorry that you felt this was patronizing. But this article writing process is about consensus. Not just you. Not just me. If the consensus is that your versions are the best, so be it. I will gladly concede the point. --Filll 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

" Let me know say that it seems to me that you were defensive and hostile from the start. I do not believe I was." I would beg to differ. I am not being defensive and hostile. You can have your own version back if it means that much to you. However, I would submit that the evidence is that others besides me have had problems with the text that you are defending so valiantly and diligently. But maybe I have misunderstood the situation. If so, I apologize.--Filll 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"You then went into a lengthy critique of Gould (irrelevant, as I stated earlier) as well as wording I introduced (which is fair and I did not rebuke or criticize), and also mentioned your four degrees and appealed to your authority (irrelevant, I certainly have never appealed to my own training as an authority in this discussion)." Well you do want to go into a blow by blow discussion of this don't you? My goodness. You might be an authority. I am glad to admit I am no authority. I am an outsider who finds the text in this area unclear. Which I believe is not helpful and does not serve the purposes of the "fact and theory" section. But you are free to disagree and use every tactic you know to maintain the status quo. It is no skin off my nose. Keep it, if the consensus is that this is preferable. --Filll 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

" you (1) disregard the fact that much (I admit not all) of what I restored was the result of many people's contributions over the years and not just my own view, and (2) characterized my intentions in bad faith, as the result of a fit of pique rather than my desire to improve the article." I now realize that I have mischaracterized the situation. Your revision was an attempt to move the section back towards the previous version which you have shepherded along for the last several years. I apologize for having misunderstood what was going on. You were responding to protect a section that had been stable for a long time. Ok, fair enough. We should not have touched the section without a much much longer discussion on the talk page and much much more serious documentation. I now understand.--Filll 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"My next response was this: We have a "simple" wikipedia for such things." With all due respect, I do not believe that this was pertinent to the "theory and fact" section. However, perhaps I misunderstand.--Filll 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"A complex topic is goiong to require exposition of what makes it complicated. It is ill-served by oversimplifying. for example, to say that "theory is an explanation of facts" is a vast, vast simplification and really just not accurate. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)" I think that the only way to address this is with copious and careful scholarship. As I said before, of course it is a vast oversimplification. And why I think that vast oversimplification is appropriate in many situations and contexts.--Filll 18:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I do like your (current) version. I think it's now very clear to the layman and so will support that. It's frustrating when you attempt to improve an article and are met with personal attacks rather than friendly argument. At least on the natural selection page there was a genuine argument for a bit! Happy editing. All the best — Axel147 17:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review
Ebionites article passed GA. Thanks again for all your help. We are having a 2nd round of peer review to get it ready for FA nomination. Your perspective on changes needed to make it FA quality would be appreciated. Ovadyah 16:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Race
You left a message at discussion that you are reorganizing. But you are deleting some cited text. Please be more careful not to exclude anything when you are reorganizing in future. Or if you will delete anything, at least explain...Lukas19 01:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomination
Would you like to co-nominate User:FT2 for adminship with me? I came across this user in the last past week and I am very impressed with his work. I saw that you collaborated with FT2 is a few articles, and thought would be a good idea to ask you about this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nom at Requests_for_adminship/FT2_2 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - and grammar fix
Thank you :)

And a small grammar fix - two commas that're needed for easy readibility is missing: "... nothing to do with_,_ my ..." and again, "... him_,_ but countless  ...", and a typo: "them/then".

FT2 (Talk 18:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally Disputed
We have a raging edit war going on over at Ebionites. Please help. Ovadyah 14:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on RfA!
With the RfA complete and over, and a day to recover on top, I finally feel able to click a few buttons and write a few comments.

Of those, one of the first I want to write is to you, to express my thanks for your confidence and trust, based upon the work of the last year or so. I'm hoping to live up to it longer term this end too. We did good work on the religious articles, didn't we :) In the end :)

As a new user of admin access, I might well benefit from guidance for a while to come. I trust my existing approach overall, but its an area one doesn't really want to make even a single mistake, and where the judge is the eyes of ones peers. So advice would be a Good Thing.

To start that off, I've already asked for advance guidance from other admins active in two areas that I'm likely to be involved in long term - dispute handling, and suspected socks. As time goes on, I might want to come back for advice more generally. I've set up User:FT2/Advice sought as a first step to ensuring this new access is taken as a responsible user; if you want to watchlist it, I'd be fine with that :)

Happy editing in 2007, and once again - many thanks! :) FT2 (Talk 01:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be an essay
Loved your piece at User_talk:FT2. Would you consider starting an essay on the basis of that text? I think that it is very useful, not only for new admins, but mainly from non-admin users that are unclear about what does it means to be an administrator. Lately I have engaged several editors that throw at me ... "but you are an admin, and I am not, so your argument is always stronger", and I hate that... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice essay, but the truth is that we have more power than garbagemen - we're more like custodians who have the keys to every room in the building...because it's our job to clean out the garbage and make sure the place is presentable when people come to work. Because the custodians have keys for the buliding, they could lock the workers out of the building, or empty the furniture out of somebody's office for the fun of it...and while they may be called upon to empty someone's office, it isn't something they do for the fun of it, or do just because they can.  Guettarda 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll help. Guettarda 13:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1st draft: Advice for new administrators. Add some of your wisdom, Guettarda. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)