User talk:Sunborn/archive1

Nazareth in the First Century
Although your opinion is common among atheists, it is not substantiated. Look at my long list of respected references in the talk page of the "Historicity of Jesus" article. I will revert my addition. Most significant is the fact that in the first century, a family of priests was assigned to the village of Nazareth in Galilee (inscriptions, Aramaic, Caesarea, found 1962.) Conclusively proves Nazareth was a village at that time. That a cemetery was near the site means nothing. Every small village had cemeteries at the outskirts of town. TTWSYF

List of religions
I did read your edit, and in fact was supportive of the Dharmic categorization. You should check out my comments in the archived section in which I fought for it. However, in this regard, both the Dharma and Indic connection are fundamental to understanding the genesis of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and, much later on, Sikhism. I think they can stand side by side without interfering with one the other's purport. --LordSuryaofShropshire 23:14, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Definition of religion
I noted on this talk page that you might want to rethink your definition of religion. --Andy M. 09:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The removal of the word "official" certainly makes your definition more inclusive of Judaism. But while your definition (if deemed appropriate) would certainly be helpful in differentiating a religious group from a non-religious group, I don't feel that it defines what a religion truly is. The American Heritage dictionary says that a definition is "a statement conveying fundamental character", and I disagree that the presence of a view on afterlife is the fundamental character of many religions. Of my many years of Conservative Jewish education, afterlife was rarely discussed, and usually only in passing or in reference to another religion. In my experience, the afterlife is a lesser aspect of Judaism, and I'm sure this is true for other religions. If you are, in fact, just looking to differentiate religions from other groups, again, removing the word "official" would be on the right path. --Andy M. 06:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re:Changing Font Colors
I put the answer on my talk page. :D [[User:Ilyanep|Ilyanep Old sig...back wen I used templates...now gone ]] 15:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Again. [[User:Ilyanep|Ilyanep Old sig...back wen I used templates...now gone ]] 20:41, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey...I have a little suggestion for you there. [[User:Ilyanep|Ilyanep Old sig...back wen I used templates...now gone ]] 00:45, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: My edit on list of religions
I agree that your suggested arrangement under Buddhism is preferable (although the old version was slightly confusing), so I made the change. By the way, do we have any idea why someone thinks (Indian subcontinental) is a necessary qualifier? - Nat Krause 04:37, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yoga
You may find the note tacky, but complete removal isn't warranted. As a major Hindu school, yoga needs mention. I am reinstating an altered form of the Yoga note in List of religions. --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:14, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Not only is Yoga a word describing several meditative and devotional Hindu practices, but it is also a school of Hinduism, one of the six primary philosophical schools (astika). It is as much a school as Vedanta. --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:21, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * No. Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa are historically important in the development of modern Hinduism but are no longer actively espoused and extant schools. Hence, they should not be placed on the list. As for "yoga", there is no need to slice the article into separate bits. There are common links, as I mentioned, underlying the different Yogas. All I was trying to tell you is that there are several facets of Yoga. As it is, the current Yoga page is an excellent overview of the idea of union (which is the meaning of Yoga) in Hinduism. Deeper discussions of other aspects, like Bhakti yoga or Hatha yoga are discussed in separate pages which are all duly referenced in the main parent heading of Yoga. Remember, Hindus consider all the forms of Yoga to be transcendentally meditative and unitive. The structure of the yoga pages are fine as they are. --LordSuryaofShropshire 05:28, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Nationalism?
Ummmmmm... this has nothing to do with nationalism... I'll use the two groups in question as illustrations... Both China and India, as names, as concepts, as geographic and cultural entities, existed long, long before any single nation was created. There is no 'nationalism' involved in referring to the cultures of those respective areas as ancient, middle, modern or otherwise 'Chinese'/Sino- or 'Indian'/Indo-/Indic cultures. I think a downfall of excessive political correctness and intercontinental sensitivity is the tendency to act as if their is no such thing as cultural diversity in an effort to make everything 'equal,' 'neutral', benign. Daoism and Confucianism are thoroughly Chinese... their scriptures are in the Chinese language and their proponents and followers for millenia have been people in the Chinese mainland. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism all originated in, developed primarily in (for millenia at a time) India and their primary texts are predominantly in Indian languages. Buddhism admittedly spread out to Tibet, China and Japan, but it took over 1500 years for it to establish a distinctly non-Indian or modified-Indian form of Buddhism. Thus, it is only rational and standard historical and academic nomenclature which are responsible for the heading changes. I, like you I am sure, allow neither ethnocentric/national nor myopic pseudo-political correctness to guide my edits. --LordSuryaofShropshire 03:06, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Response to some strange words

 * "But Buddhism arguably started in what is now Nepal." First of all, yes, ancient Nepal is considered a part of India. The geographical landmass known as the Indian subcontinent has always been referred to as India by scholars of the the last five hundred years. Many names used in hindsight could be called by nitpickers 'anachronistic' but this is merely a play of semantics. The body we now call the greater-Indian subcontinent has for whatever reason became known as "India" (I do know why, but the reasons are irrelevant to the point being made). Historians refer to it as India. Hindus, a few millenia ago, began calling it "Bharat varsha." Whatever people called it, it was still the same general landmasss. By the way, the Indian prince, Gautama, was born in what is now known as Nepal, but his nirvana came in modern-day Bihar and Buddhism is said to have begun not with his birth but with his realization of his major principles.


 * "Hinduism may have been up where the Buddha was but it would have been nothing more than a form of tribalism, nothing more than the note beside eqyptian mythology." You sound like a fundamentalist. Vedic religion, the Upanishads, Brahmin culture, that is Hinduism. Hinduism is a "name" referring to an entity, not the entity itself, and for that reason though the formal name Hinduism is used today its others, such as "Vedic religion" or "Sanatana dharma", or astika dharma (i.e. following the Vedas) have always referred to a single major system of belief. Also, your bitterness is coming on strong. You need a chill pill. No one's fighting about religions and who's big and who isn't. Buddha and Mahavir (if you didn't know, the latter's the founder of Jainism) both grew up in communities of proto-Hindus.

"If you are not trying to make everything equal, and neutral, I don't know if this part of the wikipedia is for you. We must have a Neutral point of view." Dude, what is wrong with you? Can you understand written English? I never said I didn't want neutrality. I said that excessive political correctness often leads to blindness, just as excessive nationalism might. However, you fail to realize that statements like " Where I come from, we find patriotism more than a little shocking." sound really childish. The Buddha himself said to walk the Middle Path. I believe in that. I'm not trying to abolish neutrality, nor am I, like you, trying to strip everyone and everything of all cultural distinctions. What I'm trying to say, and what you're clearly not getting, as that the realities and their accurate, and neutral, depiction, is prime, not some strange and unrealistic ideal portrait of a world without differences. It just so happens that Confucianism and Daoism were shaped by and in turn shaped Chinese culture, and are called Chinese philosophies.

"Besides, what if we wanted to open the category up, say, like into just philosophical religions? Deism, which currently lacks a spot could easily fit up in there. " Go ahead. --LordSuryaofShropshire 04:04, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * All you succeeded in doing by your latest post is to convince me that you're not someone with whom reasonable debate can be carried on. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:26, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

sig template
just wanted to let you know, your sig template idea is genius... I may bite that, just to warn you. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:36, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... all good food for thought. I'll mess around with it a little more I guess.  I forgot about the 5 per page limit, I guess I could use subst: but that's not as cool...  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:01, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Archiving
I archived all three username disputes &mdash; no action or discussion had taken place for over a week. Thanks. :) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 15:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Really? I didn't see that. Sorry. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:31, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: Revert template
Oh, I'm afraid there isn't one; the text "Reverted edits by X to last version by X" is automagically generated whenever an admin (such as myself) uses the rollback feature. This feature isn't available to non-admins however; this is mostly because it's meant to make dealing with vandalism easier, and (in a perfect wiki world) should never be used in an edit war where the disputed edits aren't obviously vandalism, newbie tests, disruptive, or otherwise contrary to policy. Also, templates don't work in edit summaries; such a thing would be useful I suppose, but all reverts should ideally be explained, so a simple "rv vandalism" is enough in such cases (you may choose to include the username/IP and/or timestamp you're reverting to, but it isn't always essential). Hope this helps. :) -- Hadal 04:13, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Truce
Thank you. A most gracious offer, and I'd be happy to accept. Ambi 06:16, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Periodic table
I like what you've done at Periodic table, but yellow is a poor color to use for text. Besides, the yellow on yellow for Astatine is all but unreadable. Would you consider using a different color?

Darrien 01:30, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)

Re: God
See reply @ User_talk:Sam_Spade. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 16:52, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * New comment @ User_talk:Sam_Spade. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 17:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Again, User_talk:Sam_Spade. Sam [Spade] 20:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is and is not a word.
- I do not really care whether we use ‘till’ or ‘until’ in the article on Muhammad, but I do care that you made an unnecessary edit and then offered a mistaken reason for it. ‘Till’ is, in fact, a word, a perfectly-acceptable word, and it has the same meaning as ‘until’. You might want to consult a dictionary before making such a comment. &mdash; Ford 00:53, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

- ‘Till’ is not a colloquial word; substituting ‘until’ is a genteelism. This is a stylistic argument, though. If you want to exchange the one for the other based on the way it sounds to you, so be it. Just be careful what you say. On that point, I would ask whether you were joking or misspeaking when you wrote “I am not as ignorant as thou!”. Joking, I hope, because it would be an even-worse misstatement, since thou art at least as ignorant as I, and likely many times more so. &mdash; Ford 03:03, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

- Apology accepted. And I do not even object to the ‘troll’ comment, since I take that as an objective opinion, even if it is not true. I came to Wikipedia as a consumer, and was enthusiastic about the information available. But some of it was wrong, and some of it, despite the claim of neutrality, was biased. Therefore I began contributing. I did not create any problems in Wikipedia. Wikipedia had problems, even according to its own standards, and I attempted to fix them. My results have not met with universal acclaim, but surely you do not suppose that Wikipedia was a pastoral, harmonious community before I arrived? To consider one of my edits of Muhammad, I am not the only one (even at Wikipedia) who believes that the use of PBUH in an encyclopedia article is wholly unacceptable, that it transforms an article from an objective presentation of reality into a homily. If you consider any of my other contributions trolling, I would like to know which, since at every point where I have met with resistance, I have also met with support. &mdash; Ford 01:00, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

Would you take a look at Jesus?
Talk:Jesus If you would take a stab at rewriting this paragraph, I'd consider it a favor. see the discussion at the link above. THANKS!Pedant 23:47, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

Thank you, your wording pretty much works for me... I copied it to the talk page of Jesus lol, that sounds weird doesn't it? Like a modern version of prayer, just leave a message on His talk page. Thanks again. We'll see what the other editors think.Pedant

Deletionist campaign
Hi there. As someone who has displayed a fairly rational and objective attitude towards micronation articles in the past I thought you might be interested to note that the rabid deletionist lobby is on the march against them again.

The latest target is New Utopia, which although a poorly written article in its current form concerns a subject that is eminently encyclopaedic, being the latest in a long line of libertarian "new country projects" (and therefore representative of a notable social/historic phenomenon), being the subject of dozens of international press and TV stories, as well as the subject of a widely-known US Securities & Investment Commission investigation for fraud.

You might want to take a look at the VfD and respond accordingly.

For future reference you might also want to note the articles in the Micronations Category, in order to keep an eye on its contents; I’ve been adding a number of well-researched, illustrated, fully referenced articles to this category in recent months, but there are moves afoot thanks to a highly suspect ongoing arbitration of process to have me banned completely from writing anything at all about micronations on the basis that as the founder of one, anything at all that I write is somehow self-promotional and/or controversial. --Gene_poole 22:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your message and VfD support. I can understand how you might feel intimidated by the sort of threats Ambi customarily spouts; it is her modus operandi as queen bee and attack dog of the rabid deletionist community. My advice is not to be taken in my it. There's no actual substance there - just a lot of subjective hysteria, POV ranting and hot air.--Gene_poole 06:12, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Help requested
Biblical inconsistencies is currently a messy list. Could you help tidy it up (it is huge)?

It will probably need to be cut into sections (e.g. by part of bible) and each section moved to a new page.CheeseDreams 00:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on Hinduism. I added two more URLS for links to themes in Hinduism? Can you fix it again to make it less ugly? I tried and it didn't work again. Raj2004

Request for mediation
It is a requirement of Wikipedia policy that you are informed of the following link's existence: Requests for mediation

It is also a requirement to inform of the following link (although Slrubenstein failed to comply with the requirement): Requests for mediation

Bureaucratship
Hey Sunborn - I just wanted to let you know that I'm running for bureaucratship, and I would like to ask for your vote, be it good or bad. I'm sending this message to a few users I respect who have interacted with me recently. Thanks, Andre ( talk )A| 00:32, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Jesus
In order to try to work out the relationship between all the various pages and hopefully get some consensus, Mpolo has opened a WikiProject to centralize discussion and debate. We've got several "conflicted" pages at the moment, and without centralizing discussion, it's going to get very confusing. Please join the project, if you're interested in the topic, and start discussions on the talk page. (We need to create a to-do list, but Mpolo thinks the current state is too conflicted to decide even that). CheeseDreams 20:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Putting a link here
Putting this link here will undoubtably attract Slrubenstein and Sam Spade and company to the link destination. Nethertheless, would you like to comment?

Requests for comment/CheeseDreams

Oh, you might also like to see the nuclear option

Abuse of adminship
Could you take a look at Requests_for_comment/Slrubenstein please?CheeseDreams 08:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another abuse of adminship
Would you care to take a look at Requests for comment/John Kenney ? CheeseDreams 02:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For your information
Could you take a look at Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams You can comment on the talk page, or in "evidence" CheeseDreams 00:55, 11 December 2004

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Pathos
They have just started another edit war at Historicity of JesusCheeseDreams 14:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fraternity mess
Hey Sunborn, nice to be edit warring with Diddy and his ilk on fraternities and sororities. I thought it would be nice to revert Diddy's vandalism to your userpage, and I've imposed a 24hr block on this nasty character. He also made legal threats in articles and on my talk page, so this was pretty open-and-shut. Please keep me posted if worrying things occur. I don't think the legal threats hold any water. JFW | T@lk  20:18, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sig
Your sig is STILL BROKEN. Here's how to appropriately fix it:


 * 1) Enclose everything properly in brackets on your sig page.
 * 2) Edit your preferences to use "RAW signature without automatic link"
 * 3) Change "your nickname for signatures" to.

This will still allow you to use to leave your name w/o UTC and ~ with UTC. I'm sick of looking at your broken sig, its not that hard ;) ALKIVAR &trade; 23:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No you are correct that using Raw will not fix previous sigs... but it will stop it from trying to automatically wrap a (your new sig here) around your new sig, which would end up breaking it again ;)   ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 23:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek
Hi Sunborn, I noticed you just wrote The Battle. I wanted to point out the existence of WikiProject Star Trek. In particular, there's a proposal there to use an "infobox" to summarize information about an episode. I think all the "proposal" requires is someone with the energy to implement it! You? Dbenbenn 08:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Charles Manson and Scientology
He was indeed a scientologist - check his autobiography, and check the Celebrities in Scientology FAQ (which is referenced). "Famous" vs "infamous" appears to be a semantic quibble, not substantive - David Gerard 12:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just checked and the reference wasn't in the article. I just put it in. This is the FAQ. - David Gerard 12:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apology
I greatly apologise for my own misunderstanding. Due to the fact that it came from the Malay wikipedia and I find it useful, I put it up but I did not have the knowledge that it was a copyvio. Thanks. - Mr Tan 3.42, 30 Jan 205 (UTC)

To do list
Could you add these two pages to your to do list, there is some extremely POV editing going on by TBSDY
 * 1 - and evidence of TBSDY's extreme POV editing there -
 * 2 - and evidence of TBSDY's extreme POV editing there -, , and most of all

Also note that the critical books removed are the more respected of the group, but the ones left in more dubious. The same goes for trying to tie all of the aspects to people like Hislop, Freke, and Gandy. Also note that Freke & Gandy's book was regarded by the Daily Telegraph as "an erudite and well researched book stuffed with controversial ideas", and so inserting only the CNN viewpoint is a heavy and POV attempt to discredit it.

Here are some links you might find useful for commenting on TBSDY
 * WP:RFC
 * WP:RFM
 * WP:RFAR

Thanks. Good luck. And don't give in. And just to check what is going on
 * WP:AN


 * I've just seen this. Please, feel free to review my edits! Also be aware that this is most likely CheeseDreams commenting, however she has been blocked for a day for editing articles related to Christianity (and thus violating the ArbCom order) and then blocked for a week for using someone to edit for her as a proxy. Oh, and also I suggest that you carefully look at the edit history. I did not remove the book reviews that talks about the "erudite and well researched books (etc)" comment. That was another user, not related to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Battle
Hello, Just a heads up...

I've been doing major overhauls and rewrites of all Star Trek: The Next Generation episode spoilers. I've already completed all three seasons of Star Trek: The Original Series and have moved onto Next Gen. I see you did the page for The Battle, and I just wanted you to know I'll be completely changing it when I get to it. I'm getting rid of the archaic video cassette box picture and adding a better video still from the actual episode, like I have done with most of the others.

The other thing is getting rid of the "stat block" as I call them, I don't think they're necessary and I never included them in the other episode write ups. I deleted one such block from a previous rewrite of a TOS episode, "Spock's Brain" I think it was, and the original Wikipedian who put it there went ape shit about its removal. So I figured I'd mention it to you and hope you don't mind, I don't want hatemail on my talk page. Thanks. Cyberia23 08:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re:Star Trek overhaul
Yeah they are all pretty much the same format with credit to writers and director, and if i could find a good image I added that in as well, also giving proper credit. Cyberia23 03:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fiji "Edit War"
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I am contacting FIJI's national for their stance on the whole letters or word fiasco. I posted a similar comment in the Talk:Fraternities and sororities page. Hopefully their response will resolve this matter. neo E instein 01:16, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Christian-lineage.png
I think you should revert to the version before transparency because IE does not display this correctly. Normally I would say that people should get better software, however, I think in the case of wikipedia it is meant to try to work the best for the greatest number of people. If you can redo transparency so it works under IE that would be fine as well. Thanks. gren 20:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sunborn. I've been wondering if you could make a spanish version of Christian-lineage.png.

Translations shall say: Thank yuo very much. --Huhsunqu 03:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Early Christianity: Cristianismo primitivo
 * Restorationism - Resorantismo
 * Claim of Separate Lineage
 * Protestantism - Protestanismo
 * Anglicanism - Anglicanismo
 * Roman Catholicism - Catolicismo
 * Western rites - Rito occidental
 * Eastern rites - Rito oriental
 * Eastern Orthodoxy - Ortodoxia
 * Oriental Orthodoxy - Iglesias de oriental
 * "Nestorians" - Nestorianismo

My RFA
Hey wanted to let you know i'm up for Adminship if you want to go vote. Requests_for_adminship/Alkivar  ALKIVAR &trade; 05:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lampoon
I don't understand your edit-summary claim that "lampooned is not an encyclopedic word". It's a perfectly straightforward, descriptive English word &mdash; why do you think that it doesn't belong here? Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's sad that, instead of having the courtesy to reply to me, you simply reverted to your version with another vague edit summary, this time with an even vaguer wave of the hand at the MoS. If you'd care to explain your point either here or preferably on Talk:Occam's Razor, then we might get somewhere. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)