User talk:Slrubenstein/archive 7

BCE/CE vs BC/AD as regards to existing articles
Hi, I have a question for you and your thoughts on this would be appreciated. I had recently planned on slowly going about converting the primary articles concerning Iranian history to BCE/CE, starting with the List of kings of Persia last night. I feel that I am justified in doing this since BCE/CE is standard in academia and there is no strong connection between Christianity (I am strongly opposed to BC/AD due to the Christian connotations) and Iranian history, and more and more articles have begun to adhere to BCE/CE. However, my changes were reverted by another who opposed this move, stating that this change was unnecessary and would confuse people. I strongly disagree with this user. Should I avoid any attempt at converting existing articles (of the ancient Iranian history variety) due to potential conflict (with users who strongly adhere to BC/AD)? Your input would be much appreciated. SouthernComfort 03:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your messages. I greatly appreciate your comments, as well as Sunray's. You have both been very helpful in clearing some things up for me. At the time I made the changes I had not fully read through the debate, nor was I completely aware that the Manual of Style was absolutely inclusive of both terminologies. My general idea of the debate was that it was centred around the issue of POV/NPOV and I wasn't sure what my thoughts on that were at the time votes were being taken, which is why I didn't vote. I had thought that this would simply be an initial poll and that there would be more votes being taken in the near future once it had entered the 'policy proposal' stage. I'm not exactly clear on how Wikipedia operates as far as these technical details are concerned, and I figured that in the meantime I might as well learn how the whole system works so that I would be able to make proper arguments without the risk of being attacked as someone who isn't clear on these things. Perhaps, considering my background and where I'm coming from in all this, I should have simply jumped in. I don't understand why you have been attacked, and why this debate that you have initiated has been attacked, and why they all seem to be so eager to shut it down. I strongly disagree with ending this proposal before it has even begun.


 * At any rate, none of the ancient Elamite kings and Iranian Shah's were Christian, and Iranian history (which includes Elamite history), as with Jewish, Indian, and Chinese history, long predates Christianity. To impose the 'BC/AD' terminology on the history of these civilisations which have no connection to Christianity I find to be very chauvinistic in this day and age. Perhaps 'chauvinistic' is a strong word, but how else can I describe it as? I have absolutely no desire to impose 'BCE/CE' on Christian-related articles or even upon the histories of Christian European civilisations. That is an entirely different issue, and I don't understand why User:Jguk is unable to see this. That's another reason I didn't directly get involved with the debate. I had been planning on making these changes for quite awhile, since as User:Mel Etitis has also articulated, 'BCE/CE' is well accepted in academia (I have no idea whether this is true in the U.K., but I know that here in the States as well as Canada it is) and 'BC/AD' just looks archaic (aside from all the other POV problems). So, in addition to the other reasons I have listed, I figured that by keeping a distance and concentrating only on Iranian history related articles, no one could accuse me of trying to do anything 'POV.' And yet despite keeping this distance, I have been accused.


 * Honestly, I would like to go ahead and revert Jguk's revert, but if he is strongly behind his POV (and it seems to me that he is), it will get nowhere very fast. And if not him, there might be someone else. I was taken aback somewhat when he reverted in the first place as I could not understand what his objections could possibly be. This is why I think it is vital that this issue be taken into the proposal stage eventually, or at the very least it should become Wikipedia policy not to impose 'BC/AD' on articles which have literally absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. My apologies for this very long message, but I felt I had to fully explain where I am coming from (though I think you understood this from the very start) and why I did not become involved in the debate, and I truly hope that this issue does not become closed down or shut away in some dark corner to be forgotten, and that your efforts are very much appreciated. Again, thank you. SouthernComfort 01:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I went ahead with the revert (twice), and sure enough it was reverted (twice), by not only Jguk, but another U.K./Australian user. Check out the absurdity over at Talk:List of kings of Persia and the history. You know, it's one thing for them to do that if it were a Christian chronology, but this is too much. I won't be backing down on this one. I've also added my comments in support of the continued discussion to the BCE/CE debate ('Move to close' section). Hopefully this will all lead somewhere positive eventually, as the implications resulting from continued imposition of BC/AD are far too great. SouthernComfort 11:20, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This User:Jguk (please see his talk page and his responses on mine) is something else. What course of action do you recommend now that he is threatening me? SouthernComfort 14:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I just want to add that I am currently engaged in several disputes with Southern Comfort, and that I am subject to the same sort of aggressive reverting, refusal to compromise, and insulting remarks about which SC complains when such tactics are directed at him by others. I wish that SC would treat me with the same consideration he demands for himself. That said, I'm writing all my articles with BCE/CE, as being the scholarly standard. Zora 21:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The situation is not just between myself and Zora (other users are involved and compromises have been reached which she refuses to recognize) and anyone who is so inclined may take a look at Talk:Khuzestan and Talk:Ahvaz (as well as article histories for evidence of the POV revisionism and denial of factual history, in addition to blatant vandalism, that she has insisted on imposing upon these articles) for the frustratingly gory details. She is currently the only one disputing Ahvaz. This is not unlike my situation with User:Jguk. SouthernComfort 22:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I very much appreciate the advice, and Sunray has been very helpful in this area. Though it seems the current proposal has 'failed,' so to speak, this shouldn't be the end of it, and I certainly hope you continue in your efforts despite whatever you have had to go through with your opponents. I hope you don't give up on this as I think your involvement is warranted considering your initial proposal has had results in proving that current policy is flawed. At any rate, I hope all of this will lead somewhere, whether a compromise or policy solution. SouthernComfort 22:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Not at all, your advice is perfectly 100% valid and appreciated (I just wish things could be so readily resolved through communication.) I don't want to get you inadvertently involved in this situation (what can I say, she left the comments ;) so I will not say anything further about that. I understand and respect your position, which seems to be the most logical route to take. I will definitely take a look at the Bible article and discussion, as I would seem to require a great deal of catching up to do on all of this, as usual. SouthernComfort 22:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay,
Okay, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your BC/BCE proposal, I thought it was for a hard-and-fast policy and that it was getting a bit out of hand. Yours, Radiant_* 07:37, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * In unrelated point, you said that "There are policy proposals at Category:Wikipedia_policy_thinktank (of which this is a part) that have been around since 2003.". Which ones would those be? I believe this cat should only hold current proposals (and it's currently on WP:CFD for renaming as such) so I'd like to archive out some old ones. Radiant_* 12:37, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * We have Category:Wikipedia historical pages. There should be a clear distinction between which proposals are currently under discussion, and which aren't - because it influences the way people work on the wiki. That's also why we have pages like Watch and Recent changes, to alert people on what is presently going on. That, obviously, doesn't apply to Encyclopedia pages. People are welcome to add comments to historical pages, of course, but they should not do so under the impression that they are actively being listened to. If people want to revive an old idea, they should realize that they need to do some effort, e.g. putting it up at the village pump. Radiant_* 14:59, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by 'none of them are dated'? All of them have dates on them, of course. And those that are no longer active are in Category:Wikipedia historical pages, or maybe Category:Wikipedia guidelines if accepted. Radiant_* 15:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Your user page
Ok, the 1st thing you need to do is get rid of anything from the page that is conversations with others that should have been on the talk page. Just make another archive of them or something. At the top of the page should be an introduction, saying who you are etc. Maybe just below that put things that relate to you and wikipedia i.e major articles contributions you've made. Also photos are quite good. Then if you want to put interesting bits of information not relating to you, put them underneath, with their own headings. Don't go overboard and make a 300k article which you seem to love doing! That's my advice for now. Making it look pretty comes after fixing the content. --Silversmith 15:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Change of Username
thanks for your comments. i was persuaded by those on my talk page to make the change to avoid offense, and also make it easier to communicate with me. but i did keep the user/talk pages so that my pov is clearly outlined. Abeo POV: Jesus is the Christ 16:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Bible
Hi...I appreciate your comments on your user page about the Bible. I am a Christian (ordained clergy, in fact) who believes quite firmly in Scriptural truth and authority and inspiration, but I also maintain that it has a powerful culturally-influenced human element, and this does not in any way demean the Bible. I actually look at it as traditional (Nicene) Christianity has viewed Jesus...fully divine yet also fully human. I am comfortable living with paradox, but understand that many are not. I hope that the sometimes unkind words thrown your way don't wound too deeply; they are not representative of Christianity in general or Christians. KHM03 18:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk
I would obviously like to get involved, but I'm not exactly clear on how this works, i.e. where do I add my statement and is there anything in particular I need to know before I add my edits? Thanks. SouthernComfort 15:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, see Parthia (originally BCE/CE to begin with - Jguk changed to BC/AD), Hormozgan (original author User:Zereshk agrees with BCE/CE as evidenced on Talk:List of kings of Persia) - there are a lot of changes (from original BCE/CE to BC/AD as opposed to my changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE) as evidenced through his user contributions. SouthernComfort 15:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I've added myself to the RFAR as an involved party; after delving into Jguk's contributions, I discovered he's been on this POV crusade for quite some time. -- M P er el ( talk 21:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I apologize in advance for not involving myself in the case; however, I feel that the case rests on a trivial issue and should be thrown out. In addition, I don't want to waste my efforts on what appears to be a hopeless venture for both parties. For the record, I don't support edit wars; therefore, I don't support RickK, violetriga, you, or anyone else in their consistent reverting of articles for usage of any dating system. See my comment to RickK here. Adraeus 01:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

List of kings of Persia
Sorry but by reverting List of kings of Persia you are merely showing your POV about the subject. The original style (BC/AD) should be maintained and your reverts to the contrary are against current policy. I understand your annoyance about the situation and would support BCE/CE if that was what the article started with. violet/riga (t) 15:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but your argument is not correct. For dates and spellings we stick to what the original author used.  You are arguing about the content not expanding when it's simply these stylings of the article that should remain constant. violet/riga (t) 15:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

BC/BCE debate revisited
Over the weekend someon replaced all the BC/BCE with BCE on Jesus claiming vote of 31/19 was consensus - I thought we had reached a less satisfying for all but more broadly supported consensus of using both BC/BCE and avoiding AD 2005 CE except if the context does not clearly indicate before or after. Could you help out over there if you agree this is the consensus - as I don't want to stir up that again. Trödel| talk 13:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks - no problem re the request - I had a good chuckle that people were trying to enforce AD/BC only at the Kings of Persia - even I am not that my-POV-centric. I need to write a well thought out response and have a couple work related deadlines so it will be later today. Trödel| talk 15:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to post something - I wanted to do some research on the usage in accepted textbooks/reference material, but just haven't been able to get to the library. Trödel| talk 03:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

My view of BC/AD and BCE/CE
You seem to be misrepresenting and misinterpreting my view of this situation. I am trying to resolve the issue and stop people from forcing their POV – I have been reverting to that chosen by the original author and don't care which form it was. Please understand that before talking further about my actions. violet/riga (t) 15:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You are perpetuating the cycle by joining such existing edit wars. Adraeus 17:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I really can't say I like the tone you took on my talk page. It seems to me that you are annoyed that your proposal has flopped and won't see anyone trying to help if it goes against your preferences. Re-read what I have said above and you might realise that I've tried to diffuse the issue by talking about it and returning it to it's pre-war state. I was not justifying either argument, just showing you that changing from one to the other is controversial and that the policy needs to be reworded to account for such procedures. violet/riga (t) 18:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologise for the proposal-bashing above - I was just replying to your message too hastily having been annoyed by the way it sounded. My point has always been that such changes should not be taken lightly.  As I have just written at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate I think that changes should not be made unless discussed on the relevant talk page (or possibly a relevant and related WikiProject talk page).  BCE and CE, to me, have their problems (as highlighted in the proposal discussion) and by changing to them it is bound to cause problems, just as spelling changes do.  Personally I prefer BC/AD but am not opposed to the other one.  I do, however, oppose some of the reasoning behind the changes.  SouthernComfort, for example, seems to think that all article should be changed over that relate to topics outside of Christianity and Western Europe – this is obviously too general and will cause problems.


 * I don't like revert wars at all especially about such a petty thing, but it seems like some editors are pushing their POV without giving thought to the opposers of their preference. violet/riga (t) 18:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Most revert wars could be avoided if the person that did the original change stops and thinks "why was I just reverted?" and talks to the reverter on the article talk page. When it was clear that there were objections SouthernComfort should've just gone to the talk page to discuss this without continuing the edit war. Yes, I know that's easier said then done, but since it's just off the back of your proposal (which stirred up a lot of interest) it was probably just bad timing.

Nobody owns an article, correct, and people should defer to the people that contribute the most to the article. Controversial changes where the policy is not clear should be discussed first. violet/riga (t) 19:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Talk:List of kings of Persia clearly shows a debate in which SouthernComfort tries to justify his change but two others (not including Jguk) said that it shouldn't be changed. Both Jguk and Codex Sinaiticus reverted the change but SouthernComfort insisted on his version.  That, to me, shows an unwillingness to step back and look at discussions.  By changing to BCE/CE he has shown a POV; one that wasn't accepted by two separate authors and he should therefore take it to the talk page.  Sunray, in this case, didn't help by coming along and reverting rather than talking about it.  violet/riga (t) 19:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I fully support the idea of contributors to the article having a weighting to their argument, but also maintain that the edit war should not be continuing while the topic is in discussion on the talk page. Both parties were at fault for that. My opinion (and the reason for my involvement) was that it should be at the original version during such discussions. violet/riga (t) 20:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

re: the complaint
I'm not sure we have to go that far in having to provide exhaustive evidence - the case, as it seems to me, is pretty clear cut all around. The issue in question is whether or not it is proper for a user such as Jguk to go around to every single article which is BCE/CE (or has been changed to BCE/CE) and revert these changes, regardless of what editors of those articles may think. If most editors do not dispute or oppose the changes, then why should Jguk be allowed to revert every single article like that based upon non-existent policy? You and MPerel have provided, IMHO, more than enough evidence of this, unless we are also required to comment upon each and every instance, and/or provide every instance of reversion as well. The larger issue at hand is whether or not non-Christian articles have the right to adhere to BCE/CE if it is more appropriate and justified. I think all that has been presented, as well as our statements, illustrate all of this as clearly as is humanly possible. SouthernComfort 16:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your reply to my email. I will have (at best) limited internet access for the rest of the week. All the best. Guettarda 20:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Manual of Style policy change proposal
A possible compromise vote has begun at Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras. Please read through potential changes to the Manual of Style and vote on your preferred version. Your input is greatly appreciated, and I hope you can help work towards some kind of workable solution with this. violet/riga (t) 21:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/Mythical Chronology of Greece
Hi Steve, I'm having a discussion with this VfD. The issues are IMHO being missed by most of the voters. I don't know who the reflective historians are around here - who know the difference between literary and historical criticism - but I think some new voices are needed. You seem to have some interests in these matters - and perhaps some knowledge of whom else might be called on. Perhaps you'd take a look (and please don't be too distracted by the BC labelling here - that's another issue). --Doc (t) 09:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration matter concerning Jguk
The Arbitration matter concerning Jguk has opened. Please place evidence at Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Evidence. --mav 01:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Slr, can I contribute evidence in this case now, or is the roster of evidence givers now closed. Sunray 19:13, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I'm in the process of gathering evidence (a staggering 3,000 BCE/CE-->BC/AD edits Jguk/Jongarrettuk has made since October)! I have to say I am quite shocked at the extent of his anti-BCE/CE campaign. The list is currently in html format however, so I will need to convert it to a wikipedia-friendly format. The only problem is that I will be offline for the rest of this week for my job and to attend a funeral several thousand miles away. But please make sure the arbcom knows more evidence is forthcoming. -- M P er el ( talk 05:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

SR, sorry for not getting back to you sooner, as I've been away on vacation for the holiday. I don't think I'm going to have the time to spend listing all the evidence though, but I'll try to make the effort if possible. SouthernComfort 14:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Angel77
Sorry! But I really do think Wikipedia has a problem with them! (81.156.177.21 Cheese Deams, Fish Supper etc)

Bye forever,

Angel77

Zoroastrianism
You're going to love this one, Sl. It says:


 * Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC.

I have a user on the talk page telling me that this is not POV writing, but standard scholarly opinion. Your contribution to this conversation would be most appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Common Era quotation
Hi there:

Over on Common Era, User:Sunray wanted a citation for this quote:


 * According to Peter Daniels (a Cornell and Chicago trained linguist), "'C.E.' and 'B.C.E.' came into use in the last few decades, perhaps originally in Ancient Near Eastern studies, where (a) there are many Jewish scholars and (b) dating according to a Christian era is irrelevant. It is indeed a question of sensitivity."

I searched through the history and found that you had added the quote on May 14. So I was hoping that you could provide the citation.

Thanks for any help you can give,

&mdash; DLJessup 23:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * (responding to reply on my talk page):


 * Thanks for responding so quickly. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help.


 * &mdash; DLJessup 12:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection Chaim Potek's Wanderings, History of the Jews (1978) has a discussion on the origins of BCE/CE, but I have been unable to locate a copy. Perhaps somebody can check it out. Thanks.Nobs01 16:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hear hear!
You wrote: "I also take issue with the comment on monotheism. It is likely that at an early stage of their history, Jews were henotheistic, and elements of those traditions are included in the Torah. However, this does not mean that the Jews who wrote or edited the Torah were not monotheists."

I could not agree more fully with you. In fact, my reading of the OT indicates to me that this was what happened.

As for you expressing outrage - don't stress. Apparently I did that also. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Paul B wrote the following:


 * "Quoting of rules, guidelines etc is not done by objective Pan-Dimensional Beings. It is done by people with POVs, because they feel strongly about particular positions. The demand for NPOV is often in practice motived by resistance to one POV or the desire to promote another one. It is hardly a coincidence that you, Guy Montag and "Ta bu shi da yu" have been challenging particular passages and insisting on references is it? This is surely the very problem of systemic bias. People with strong religious opinions tend to be very committed to promoting or defending those views."

I'm stepping away from this article while people believe that I am acting in bad faith. Sorry. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Judaizers article
Steve, I'm having a conflict with User:ScapegoatVandal, who is trying to insert some sort of connection between the Puritans, Judaizers, the Rothschilds, and various other events, into a number of articles. Would you be willing to look at the issue at Judaizers and comment? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 14:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

where's with pitchforks already? ScapegoatVandal 17:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Era names, again
Knowing that we have disagreed somewhat on the BC/AD vs. BCE/CE matter in the past, I would value your input on a counter-proposal I have written to resolve (hopefully) the era naming style problem. Thanks! Alanyst 22:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case - final decision
A decision has been reached in the arbitration case: Requests for arbitration/Jguk. All involved users are warned strongly to abide by our policies. Please see Requests for arbitration/Jguk for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 30 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)

Back?
Notice you had dropped out of sight - good to see you back (assuming that you are). Guettarda 00:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I noticed you faded out of sight, and I was wondering if it was related to the BCE matter. So far the new "eras" proposal seems to have died down again.  Good to hear that you are being productive - with the amount of effort you have put into Wikipedia over the course of several years, it really looks like the kind of thing that could hurt productivity...speaking from experience :)  All the best.  Guettarda 00:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Behaviour
You might like to watch over the edits of SimonP -

User:-Ril- 16:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Socks
An RFC has been opened at Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer. This may be of interest to you as one of the alleged sockpuppets pasted a large quantity of text from somewhere the concerned you. 21:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV - BCE/CE/BC/AD
You might want to have a look at Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting. I see it as an attempt to formalise a violation of WP:5P. Guettarda 02:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What? I invite you to a vote and you don't support MyPOV!! How shockingly rude :) Guettarda 01:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * On your talk page I assume it's 5765. I've given that "quaint idea" of "free speech" a try, but I think that now that I am an admin I shall block every other user and convert every article in Wikipedia to MyPOV. ;)  Guettarda 01:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA ABUSE Ril, (81.156.177.21), Fish Supper.
Ril has been causing problems at Authentic Matthew. Please help us to resolve.

RIL - M.O.

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves. --Mikefar 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, the above is one of the numerous sockpuppets of the article's creator - User:Melissadolbeer - see the user's edit history, and Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer for details. The article in question is Melissadolbeer's original research based on an account by Jerome which is almost universally considered to be an error confusing 3 different gospels (Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Hebrews, and Gospel of the Ebionites). It also contains material presenting Eusebius's views of what was Biblical Canon - better discussed at those two articles, and the entire source text of the alleged Gospel, which is otherwise almost universally split into the 3 seperate texts above. The source text was already on WikiSource, and what was salvagable from the remainder of the article was merged to the above 5 articles, and Gospel of Matthew, at the suggestion of User:Wetman. It exists only to support Melissadolbeer's original research thesis. Melissadolbeer's claims of recieving abuse from me, 81.156.177.21, doc, Wetman, etc. (whom Melissadolbeer claims to be sockpuppets of one-another) are simply down to the fact that we have at one time or another merged the article elsewhere leaving only a redirect, or have voted to delete it at VFD. Indeed, one of the earlier sockpuppets - Angel77, even seems to have had a problem with you yourself. The above comment by the sockpuppet has been pasted by it into a vast number of user pages, an act which essentially constitutes excessive disruption to Wikipedia, simply because Melissadolbeer refuses to abide by the process of VFD.     19:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Communism
I am in the process of rewriting the communism article in order to turn into a valid encyclopedic entry, as opposed to the incoherent sampling of "original research" that it once was. But I'm having no luck dealing with Ultramarine, whose English is too poor and POV too strong to understand that his content belongs in related entries on Communist regimes and their development strategies, not in the communism article. Help will be greatly appreciated. 172 05:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand being over-committed. I am as well, but not as much as I was about a month ago. I'll try to see if anyone else is able to take a look. Thanks for the reply. 172 | Talk 09:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration
Melissadolbeer has opened a request for arbitration against you (at WP:RFAR). 09:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You have stated that you do not know why you are involved.

Melissadolbeer, as a result of my merging Authentic Matthew, has been spamming user's talk pages (under the sockpuppet User:Mikefar) claiming that various people, including Wetman (who added the original merge tag) are my sockpuppets. Similar accustions have been made by her/him against pretty much everyone who voted delete at the articles VFD.

Someone (an IP address) tried to merge it previously, resulting in similar spam across talk pages. At that time it was the sockpuppet User:Angel77. You are a principle feature of that spam (it consists of the IP address's edit history as a copy+paste, together with what looks like a request for arbitration against you) - e.g. a sample -. 22:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

When and if something comes up which actually relates to you I will notify you. Fred Bauder 21:52, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Melissa Dolbeer
I have just read some of the items on your page regarding myself and they are totally untrue. Not only do I not have anything against you, but as a new user could probably use some help -- thanks for your advice. As you can see, I am in over my head and seem to have become the object of Ril's wrath. I have never used a sock-puppet. Thanks for contacting me directly, as it appears that Ril is trying to cause problems for me with other users.

-- Melissa --Melissadolbeer 03:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Jesus and romantic relationships...
... put in by CheeseDreams. No wonder that was so badly researched! Finally, she has proved herself to be the nincompoop she really is. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew
Hi.

I could not find how you got named! I tried to clean things up but may have made them worse. I do believe the Vfd was unfair but can any thing be done?

Melissa

P.S. This is the truth as I understand it.

Statement by party 3
Please limit your statement to 500 words


 * I am the true Melissa Dolbeer who wrote an article on Authentic Matthew, based on many, many published sources, earlier this year. It was edited and revised and generally improved by such persons as Firestar, etc.


 * On or about May 2, I opened up Authentic Matthew and found it was gone. Being a new user, I did not know what had happened.  I eventually learned that it had been wrongfully redirected by *User:81.156.177.21|81.156.177.21]] (talk • contribs).  An "edit war" took place, but the article was finally restored.


 * On or about July 13 Authentic Matthew was again wrongfully redirected by Ril, and there appears to have been another "edit war", which was brought to an end by Mel Etis.


 * -Ril- (talk • contribs) put up a VFD on Authentic Matthew and accused me of wrongfully using "sock-puppets". I have never used a sock-puppet. He has also spread much disinformation about me, my husband, Poorman, Mel Etis, etc., etc.  *-Ril- (talk • contribs) has also deleted my vote (?) and my response on the Vfd page.


 * Due to the wrongful behaviour of *User:81.156.177.21|81.156.177.21]] (talk • contribs) and *-Ril- (talk • contribs), I request that the Vfd be fully investigated and that Authentic Matthew not be deleted until any wrongdoing is sorted out.

--Melissadolbeer 09:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Jesus again
Someone has suggested adding some info from Crossan into Historical Jesus. I believe you have some familiarity with this writer? 17:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Please send me a message via my wiki e-mail, so I have a way to send you an e-mail --JimWae 23:00, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

Marx
Hi; I've seen you responded (Marx talk page), but, unfortunately- my wiki time has (due to several unexpected circumstances) become pretty limited. So, maybe later...Best Mir Harven 15:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I caught a few spare moments to put a sentence or two on Marx talk. Not that it's of any MEGA(hehh..)importance, but, anyway..Also, since I think it's pertinent to the issue discussed, I didn't put it here. Best Mir Harven 11:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Noahide Laws
You might be interested in the current debate going on at Talk:Noahide Laws. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Titus
I think you should stop arguing with him, as it is clear that, whether he is expressing his true views or just trolling, the conversation is going nowhere, and it is just getting nastier. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

toledoth
Greetings. Would you be interested in helping to prepare the groundwork for an article called Toledoth? My initial plan is to quote scholars who use the toledoth refrain to explain the literary structure of the books of Moses, and especially of Genesis. I want to draw special attention to Abraham as the principal figure of Genesis, and in light of that centrality the curious omission of his name from the head of any of the toledoth refrains (... Terah, Ishmael, Isaac ...). I'm thinking that then, perhaps we might show the importance of the idea in general to Jewish self-understanding. Throughout, but the latter especially, is where I would need your help - unless you think that the project is ill-conceived from the outset. Issues touching the documentary hypothesis come in here, too, but perhaps can be redirected to the article on Genesis (Hebrew Bible) I don't have much of a taste for the integrity of those theorists, or for their speculative and arbitrary meta-textual interpretations, although the most respected modern scholars invariably pay homage to them  - but that's also why I've come to you, because I have perceived you feel friendlier toward them.

It's the sort of thing that I would have asked RK to help me with in the past, but he doesn't seem to be around right now. It's not that you're second-class, mind you, but rather, RK always was so willing to set me straight about things Jewish, which I appreciated. If I was concerned that I might unintentionally offend, I would go to him first as the most likely person to jump on me if I did offend! Perhaps telling you this will remove some of the sting of being thought of second :-) — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. They are helpful. I have some resources to gather, myself. If by then one of the folks you mentioned hasn't started (an|the) article, I'll stop by and ask you to look at it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Featured_article_candidates/Sociocultural_evolution
Perhaps it will interest you, as you editied the relevant article some time ago. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

reassurance
I assure you, you have not offended me. Crossan, Spong and people like them who use their apostasy like a credential, are more obviously motivated by malice than you seem to recognize, however. He speculates that the body of Jesus was eaten by wild dogs, and the world pretends to believe that this opinion arises out of honesty, faith and a noble commitment to scholarship. He pretends that it's an honest view of Christianity to see it as a scheme concocted for the overthrow of Caesar, and he's called brilliant. He says that the Church cooked up the story of the betrayal of Jesus in a plot to destroy the Jews, and he's called enlightened.

I understand why Paul is perceived as hateful toward the Jews - but he was no flatterer when he professed to love his kindred, and set himself openly against them. If you don't see why Crossan is seen as hateful by Christians, that's a blind spot. The greatest acts of hatred are accompanied with a kiss. A lying tongue hates those it hurts, and a flattering mouth works ruin. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Woodrow
This is up for deletion. I would like to have it kept as he is a significant critic of The Two Babylons. Would you care to vote on the VfD? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The Holocaust
I'm having a dispute with User:Vizcarra at The Holocaust article. He seems to be very focussed on me, as his comments indicate. Would you mind taking a look? Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Jguk for admin?
You may be interested in this: Requests for adminship/jguk CDThieme 20:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution tips?
Hi, I wonder if you could take a look at the Icon article. It's turned into a slow-moving edit war, but the most frustrating thing is that the anonymous editor(s) refuse to discuss anything on the Talk page, and keep editing using different ip addresses. Do you have any suggestions for working towards a resolution in this case? Wesley 16:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

book?
I've read several of the books listed on your userpage...I also found Bernhard Anderson's Understanding the Old Testament to be a very well written history, albeit from the perspective of a Christian scholar (probably not much in it that's distinctly Christian). Are you familiar with it? At any rate, I commend it to you. KHM03 17:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I do indeed know Bright's work...good stuff! KHM03 19:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandal
Hey, maybe you can check the actions of anon 4.240.150.203 on Jew.... I think I'm about to violate WP:3RR. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

personal attacks?
Hello...Mkmcconn (Mark) and I have been observing some ongoing edit concerns at Biblical scientific foreknowledge. Aside from the fact that the two of us have ZERO interest in the subject, an edit war has been taking place between MickWest and Kdbuffalo (also known as Ken). The page was protected briefly.

It seems to me that Ken's tone has grown increasingly unfriendly toward Mick and, at times, Mark. Both Mark and I have warned him about this.

If you have the time, do you think you could review some of the discussion there and, if you deem it appropo, see what you can do about Ken's tone and approach to editing? Mark and I aren't sure there's much more we could do.

Be prepared...the content of the article is, in my view, pretty silly (and in no way representative of evangelical Christianity!).

Thanks for your consideration...KHM03 23:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Signature
Just a bit curious, why aren't you signing your entries with four tildes any more? Jayjg (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for a favor
I've left a request for a favor from you at Talk:Yom Kippur War. This is just a reference to it so you wouldn't overlook it. Please let me know if you could do this for me. Thanks. Un focused  22:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoops!
I visited my user talk page for the first time today and saw your 10/9 note to me. I didn't understand the function of talk pages to communicate back and forth or that user talk pages could even exist if I had not created a user page. Every time I had clicked on my talk page, I found a long list of Wikipedia guides. So, I assumed that that was all that was there unless I created my user page. On a whim, today I scrolled down to the bottom and found your note.

Now I understand why you seemed so upset with my repeated interpretation of your statements. Double apologies.

I never challenged the notion that judges' decisions are often more important than editors. They (judges) terrify me. As an expert witness in civil commitment hearings in which I witness the indefinite incarceration of people (often for decades!) because of judges' beliefs (that are known to be empirically invalid), you don't have to convince me that judges decisions have great import. The point is that the form of the logic and verbal reasoning used to make decisions about what others are allowed to do or not do is almost identical. In this sense, editors act as authorities, make judgments, and apply rules. As far as I can see, this is done with greater success in the Wikipedia than in the courtroom. Despite vandals and kooks and deep conflicts, the Wikipedia has produced a remarkable compendium of human knowledge in a the wink of an eye. I have yet to see any such rational productive process in the courtroom. Our system of justice is bizarrely random, so bizarrre that few people can imagine how arbitrary it is.

But I thought I made it clear that I was not equating the impact of the typical editor's decision with the typical judge's decision.

So regarding the content of our differences, while I can imagine that if we talked this out at length I would come to understand that you were saying something completely different from what I thought you meant, I still don't see any clear contradiction between the words you used and my interpretation. That is, while I take your word for it and accept the fact that I misunderstood you, I don't understand why you thought it was an obvious, to the point of intentional, misunderstanding---even before I repeated the interpretation (not knowing of your note to me).

No need to explain. I just wanted you to know I did not mean to insult you, and did not know about your note to me, and that I still have a hard time understanding why my misunderstanding seemed so eggregious, even the first time.

BTW, is there some way of having an automatic email sent when someone edits your user talk page? Damn. The solution is so obvious I realized it before I saved this: Just put my page on my watchlist. Kriegman 01:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

FT2
You wrote: "Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I value many of the changes you have recently made to this article. And I want to apologize for having been overzealous in reverting some of your earlier changes. I know that in one case you were — as far as my research shows — wrong about one of your edits, concerning killing in self-defense. But in reverting that I reverted other changes of yours. I am sure that as I continue to work on this article there will be times when I revert or edit other contributions you have or will have ade to the article. But please know that I will be more careful in the future, to make changes more judiciously. I think several of your recent edits have really improved the article, and I want you to know that I acknowledge that."

I appreciate that. What's always irked has been the sense of editing "if its not 100% then overrule and wind back, and 100% is based upon how I think it should be". If thats no longer how its working, I value that, and value the working together to jointly draw into articles the best we can all add. I know when I add information I know or believe are accurate, if they are wrong, then fixing them is exactly what should be done. But if they are completely wrong, pausing, thinking "whats trying to be said" and using your own deep knowledge to put an amended version that tries to correct the error or make the same point better, works too. I don't mind reversion here and there, we all add things others will differ on. Wholesale "its not how I see it so wind back to my version" done too often, appears to be something quite different. I'm probabkly not saying this well. So simply, I appreciate much the gentler more thoughtful approach recently, its much enjoyed and it's making working on the article a pleasure. FT2 13:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

FT2 (again)

 * I have done some work on "historical and cultural context", Although it looks quite big in red, in fact there are not many changes, I have tried to respect your current work on it. Most of it is flow and removal of word complications suited to a book rather than an encyclopedia, and a couple of sections split or reorganized for ease of reading. Again, if you have questions bring them to the talk page; I'm pretty sure none of the changes have been large enough to count as major editing, its small stuff here and there for flow and focus, and splitting out long paragraphs into better structured slightly smaller ones in a few places. Plus splitting "prophets" in 1st kingdom, into 2 sections, "prophets" and "worship". Comments welcome of course FT2 11:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

ArbReq against Jguk
Hi, you might be interested in Requests for arbitration. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Scope of arbcom decisions
Re: Question: are ArbCom rulings considered decisions concerning specific disputes between specific partices, or more general findings concerning policy that apply to all editors?


 * Principles in arbcom decisions always apply to everyone on Wikipedia
 * Findings of fact usually do not, although there are exceptions (esp. when the findings of fact pertain to policy and/or the application thereof)
 * In every instance I can remember, remedies explicitely specify whom they apply to. →Raul654 18:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted
Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 has been accepted. Please place evidence at /Evidence Fred Bauder 13:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Jesus and "ideal race"
I notice that you have just added a passage to the discussion about Jesus and race in which you refer to "Paul's invocation of the ideal race". I wish to make it clear that the "invocation" of an ideal race – or rather the use of the term – is entirely Silence's. I know it is hard to keep track of convoluted edit histories and debates, so I am trying to make this clear to all participants. You can see what I wrote in contrast to what Silence wrote here. Note that all the phrases about an "ideal race" and "racial suprematism" were added by Silence in this specific unexplained edit. And yet, bizarrely, his recent comments on the Talk page imply that these statements are mine, not his, since he devotes some effort to arguing against them!

Here is my original edit that led to the dispute. The first part is the previous version. My additions are in italics: "Jesus was most likely a bronze-skinned man of Middle Eastern descent, based on the area in which he lived; see Race of Jesus. However there is scarce information from the time on what Jesus' racial background was, and many choose to envisage Jesus as white, black, and dozens of other, less common possibilities. Of course, according to orthodox Christian theology his birth was wholly miraculous, bypassing conventional genetic laws of inheritence, so ordinary arguments about race have no relevance to anyone who accepts the doctrine that Jesus was literally the Son of God. This belief was generally taken as given by the most artists who portrayed him, and whose portrayal reflected the views at the time about the ideal male physiognomy." Note that there are no comments about "racial suprematism" or references to specific races. The main purpose was to add the important point that orthodox Christian theology has produced a wholly different type of argument about Jesus's appearance than the naturalistic one previously discussed in the article. I thought it important to add this fact. I also thought that the last sentence I added was useful as a lead-in to the next section discussing artistic portrayals of Jesus. I still do not understand why Silence declared this addition to be "POV". It could certainly do with some copy-editing, but that's another matter. Paul B 17:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

My reply to the request for references appeared on the talk page as follows:


 * My main intent was to stress that there is a theological tradition concerning Jesus’s appearance that depends on the assumption that his birth was miraculous, and so that normal arguments about what someone from that part of the world would look like do not apply. It was Silence who seemed to wish to – in my view – confuse this issue with the notion of “racial suprematism”. Racial suprematist positions can use either the theological mode of argument or the naturalist one. They are not dependant on one or other of these views. As for the central claim that theologians have argued that Jesus must have been a physically ideal person, that’s well established. There are a number of descriptions of Jesus from spurious ancient sources that were accepted as legitimate during the middle ages. One 'Publius Lentullus' is supposed to have described him as of “singular beauty, surpassing the children of men". There are several other such idealised descriptions. You can find them on this website . The website itself is a bit idiosyncratic, but the summary of theological positions is confirmed by other sources. I have an old book called Christ in Art by F.W. Farrar, dated 1901 which contains the same information. There was a theological debate about whether Jesus would have looked ordinary or ideal. St Jerome and St Augustine both argued that he would have been ideally beautiful, As Augustine said, he was "beautiful as an infant, beautiful on earth, beautiful in heaven" (Christ in Art, p. 73). Such arguments were familiar to Renaissance artists.