User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive16

Jet engine
If you could, could you take a look at Microsoft Jet Database Engine one last time. I made some minor adjustments to the first paragraph, added a second paragraph to the intro, and delistified the first list (modules). Ryan Norton T 08:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

GNAA VfD Exemption
The following text was removed from the GNAA talk page by user Gmaxwell.:






 * Attention: This page is now exempt from VFD.


 * Do not list it. This article has passed a VFD vote on six occasions, and enough is enough. Should you attempt to list it again on VFD, one of several administrators will simply undo your actions without comment or explanation.

Manning 04:29, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any discussion that concludes the notice should be removed, in fact I can't find the user's signature anywhere on the talk page. I think it should be re-added, but I wanted to consult you first. --TexasDex 17:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

.mod.uk
Hi:

I just wanted to know what happened in the article .mod.uk in which you began the merge with .uk two times and then abort it?

Albert 19:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

An ask regarding Snowspinner
Hello, mate. I'm asking a few admins who talked to Snowspinner after his deletion of pages to ask him to give up his adminship for a while of his own free will. I've done so, here, which he declined. Snowspinner personally recommended talking to you (curiously enough) and so here I am. I've also left messages on the talkl pages on Zoe and Calton, who both were involved. It'd be nice to do this without an RfC, or have tried beforehand. Thanks for listening. Yours, --Blackcap | talk 04:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your words. I understand that RfC isn't a punishment, but thanks for saying so anyhow. I will file one, I think that's warranted. Yours, --Blackcap | talk 04:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I have created the RfC, and would appreciate your certifying it, if you wish. Thanks, --Blackcap | talk 06:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Daryle Lamont Jenkins
I wanted to alert an admin about this page. It calls someone a terrorist and contains his address and phone number--obviously there to encourage some kind of hate crime. I speedied it, but an IP is currently working on it and I wanted to make sure someone dealt with it as fast as possible. Thanks. Chick Bowen 03:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Now the CSD tag has been removed. Chick Bowen 03:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've taken care of it.-gadfium 04:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad to see you back, Ta bu. Thanks to you and gadfium for your quick and correct response in this matter. Cheers, -Willmcw 08:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Certificate
You are far more experienced than I in these matters so go right ahead. Im sure you'll design a fine disambig page. My concern was about preserving the usage of the term within so many contexts. hydnjo talk 15:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Biblical Depictions of Women
Hey, I took a crack at NPOV on the Christian depictions of Women page (not sure of the exact link). I'd like your comments and/or advice.

You're back!
Saw you over on the blocked IP page. I can't tell you how wonderful it is to see you here again with admin powers fully intact...! - Lucky 6.9 19:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thats just the kind of reaffirming thing I needed to hear after another day of Skyring harassment--nixie 13:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Historical persecution by Christians
You might be interested in the Historical persecution by Christians article, and the dispute about the "Modern" section. Jayjg (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

John Vanbrugh etc.
Thank you for your message. I had rather dismissed the whole business from my mind. Giano | talk 13:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

User:203.166.96.237
I just want to let you know that I have blocked this IP for the rest of the standard school year (until 15 July, 2006) for continuing vandalism after you so generously unblocked them. I have also lef a note on their talk page urging them to strongly reconsider whether to vandalize or not come next year when the block expires and if they continue afterwards they'll probably be blocked again. Jtkiefer T - 00:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

User:203.166.96.238
You blocked this IP indefinitely on August 2. Did you later unblock it. There was vandalism again today, so I blocked for 48 hours. Should I reinstate the indefinite? Moriori 01:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Subservience precludes equality
Ta bu shi da yu: In your re-writing of the "Women in Christianity" page, you re-wrote it to read that the Paulian epistles teach that women are subservient to, but equal with, men. This seems like a logical fallacy. How can anything be equal to that which it serves? - User:Pschelden
 * I must disagree. I am somewhat subservient to my boss, yet I am still an equal in terms of being a human being. I am subservient to the local policeman (don't have a choice), yet in the eyes of the law I am still an equal. Jesus, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God and possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained, but stripped Himself of all privileges and rightful dignity, so as to assume the guise of a servant (slave), in that He became like men and was born a human being. And after He had appeared in human form, He abased and humbled Himself [still further] and carried His obedience to the extreme of death, even the death of the cross. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Ta bu: Yes, I understand that a thing can be equal in parts, and that is not to say that something that is subservient is equal in ALL parts. But using your argument in a different context, I wouldn't say that an apple is equal to a banana because they're both equally fruits. They have important distinctions. Similarly, Paul explicitly makes important distinctions between men and women.

When you write that women are subservient, but still equal, that could be offensive to a person who considers equality primarily in terms of power relations, as many people do. Think about the way the term "racial equality" is understood. It doesn't just mean that all people are inherently equal from an outside perspective (like, perhaps, God). It probably implies this, but more to the point, it means bringing underprivileged, marginalized races into a position where they can enjoy the same POLITICAL equality that other races enjoy. In the interest of NPOV, I strongly encourage you to reconsider your addition in the Women and Christianity article. Pschelden P.S. --is this how to sign off in discussion pages?


 * Ya, you're getting the hang of that signing thingo :-) Well... politically (in the secular world that is), yes I would agree with you. I'm not saying that we should exclude the majority viewpoint (as it is today) that subservience cannot allow for equality. What I think we should do is explain that not all people believe that submission (and I would prefer this term - subservience, to my mind, is the enforced act of being under someone else's power; submission is the voluntary act of yeilding to the authority of another) does not equal inequality. It would be more NPOV to discuss these issues and not give any weight to one or the other.
 * For the record, my personal belief is that when Paul talks about the wife submitting to her husband and the husband loving his wife I've always been struck that he directly addresses woman on the submission issue and directly addresses men on the issue of loving their wives. In other words, it is not up to the man to force submission on his wife, and it is not up to the woman to force her husband to love her. Hope this clears this up. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. I know I wrote subservient, but I should have written "submit". - Ta bu shi da yu 07:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the submission/subservience issue is not a big one, and either word would be fine, so long as the article shows that women were called upon to submit to men, while men were not called upon to do the same. I think that's supported by the text. Also, instead of making the parenthetical equality statement in the same sentence, it would be best to carry this thought out into a follow-up sentence. How does that sound?

Also, while I appreciate your distinction between submission and subserviance, it does not take into account Paul's arguments against woman leadership within Christian churches, which again falls within the domain of politics. Pschelden

Image source/licensing for Image:Blast positive and negative.gif
This message notification has been automatically sent by NotificationBot managed and run by AllyUnion. Please leave comments regarding bot operations at AllyUnion's talk page. Please direct all comments regarding licensing information at Wikipedia talk:Images for deletion. --NotificationBot 12:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't upload that image. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the notice was sent to you because you were the one who tagged it as unsourced. Zach (Sound Off) 15:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Your bot is playing up
Sorry, the bot is still rather experimental, and I'm playing around with a few things. --AllyUnion (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

"Christian views of women" page sentence overlong, etc.
Ta bu shi da y,

I think your recent addition hurts the article and possibly threatens Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. The addition of that long addition in the first paragraph makes the article 1) far less legible and 2) far less within the accepted style guidelines of the encyclopedia. It also adds a counter-argument to an argument which was in turn a response to a counter-argument-supporting argument, which is not only complicated but also one-sided.

If you absolutely must include this piece of information somewhere on this encyclopedia, I would suggest you create a new page to continue this argument thread. But I really think it should just be removed, because instead of shedding further light on the topic of Christian views regarding women, it stirs up further controversy. Pschelden


 * Could you please rereview the NPOV policy? The material that was in brackets was not entirely necessary, or at least should not have been in the form it was because it appears to be commentary from Wikipedia. This in itself would at first glace appear to be pushing a POV with negative connotations - that the Bible says nothing about a man being submissive to their wife. I have balanced this viewpoint with the fact that the Bible also has things to say about the responsibility of men. If you have a problem with a long sentence, may I suggest that you rephrase the sentence?


 * Could I also request that you use the form ~ when signing your comments? Further information can be found at Sign your posts on talk pages. I would also like to request that the talk page be used? I'm currently on holidays and the talk page is most appropriate to discuss article content. While I don't mind discussing these things with you, not everyone will see what is being debated and they won't be able to add their $0.02. I'm also on holidays with no ready access to the Internet (I used a Queensland Internet cafe to edit the page).


 * Incidently, I'm not saying this to be harsh. I do appreciate your input! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Streets
I agree that the information would be a good addition -- some streets are renamed for various reasons (either the new name is a recent honoree, or the old name has fallen out of favor). Whereas very few streets would merit their own article (IMHO), I suggested that it could be added to the main article for the neighborhood. "List of streets in (CITY), (STATE/PREFECTURE/TERRITORY/PROVINCE/WHATEVER)" sounds good to me too, since if the list gets too long, it could clutter up the main city/neighborhood page. It would also make it easier to detect vanity streets being listed (someone from the city is more likely to notice a bogus street name if it is listed with the others). - Neier 13:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Editing Kodak Article
Removing the section on Image Permanence from this article was arbitrary, and the justifications offered are inconsistent with fact.

''"determined by over 150,000 continuous measurements in homes around the world and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over 14 years." - let's just see an actual reference to a journal article, and see a source for the 150,000 measurements claims, shall we? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)''

Of course: A journal reference was provided with the posting. To wit: ·Bugner, Douglas; LaBarca, Joseph; Kopperl, David; Phillips, Jonathan; Skye, David; Baker, Irene; Cunningham, Caryn; Miller, Paige; and Kaltenbach, Thomas (February 2004). "Survey of Environmental Conditions Relative to Display of Photographs in Consumer Home". IS&T's Thirteenth International Symposium on Photofinishing Technologies. 13, 31-36. ISBN 0-89208-249-6.

Since that time, this article has appeared in full form and a second article in abstracted form. I was on my way to update the references when I found that the whole section had been removed.

''More removed: "which is also confirmed by real-world long-term print displays". Well, that's not exactly Kodak's target market now, is it? And give me a source for this data. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:17, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC) ''

It is indeed Kodak's target market; as one of the world's largest producers of ink jet paper and thermal dye transfer materials, the company is an active and charter member of the ISO (International Organisation for Standardisation) committee working on methods for predicting print lifetimes. While I tried not to clutter up the entry with too many references, information on the "real-world long-term print displays" was in a JIST articles by Anderson which was in turn cited in the article referenced above. I would have been happy to provide the complete list of references going back to 1987 if asked.

By the way, although I disagreed with some of the statements made by the original poster of the section on image permanence, I did not remove those statements, but left them and their references (not to journals, but to opinion pieces, I might add) in place, only adding the literature information that in my view provided the necessary balance.

As a scientist active in this area, I am disappointed by the removal.

(Let me apologize in advance if I have used the wrong protocol to respond to this article change. I searched around for the best way to reply, but this was the only obvious one I found. I'm open to being corrected if in error.)

12.75.116.183 15:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)JonK

Sugizo
It was probably the last sentence that bothered me. I guess I could've fixed it myself but I was probably feeling lazy. Still, I'll attempt to put a descriptive note in future. Soo 15:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Congrats :-)
Thanks for the congratulations. And don't worry, my views on evangelicalism won't affect my work. In any case, having had to study religion most my life, I now find articles on it a frightful bore. I (mostly) get on fine with evangelists, too ;-). Thanks again,--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

About "Municipality of Strathfield" in ko:
I think that it was deleted because it is just a machine-translated (or poor quality) article. We have many problem on this kind of class. Your article could be a good seed for a featured article in future. But the maintaining cost is rather high. You could understand it. -- ChongDae 13:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

If you think that a page is essential for ko:, please feel free to ask it in ko:위키백과:번역 요청 (Wikipedia:Tranlation request) instead of opening a page with an incorrect name. -- ChongDae 13:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ｋｉｍ－Ｉｌｓｕｎｇ
Ｉ　ｊｕｓｔ　ｒｅａｄ　ｙｏｕｒ　ｃｏｎｃｅｒｎｓ　ａｂｏｕｔ　김일성장군의 노래　ａｔ　［［ｋｏ：사용자토론:ChongDae#Kim-il_sung］］．　Ｔｈｅ　ａｅｒｔｉｃｌｅ　ｉｎ　ｑｕｅｓｔｉｏｎ　ｈａｓ　ｔｗｏ　ｐａｒｔｓ　－　ｔｈｅ　ｆｉｒｓｔ　ｉｎｔｒｏｄｕｃｅｓ　ｔｈｅ　ｂａｃｋｇｒｏｕｎｄ　ｔｏ　ｔｈｅ　ｓｏｎｇ，　ａｎｄ　ｔｈｅ　ｓｅｃｏｎｄ　ｐａｒｔ　ｈａｓ　ｔｈｅ　ｌｙｒｉｃｓ　ｏｆ　ｔｈｅ　ｓｏｎｇ，　ｗｈｉｃｈ　ｐｒａｉｓｅ　Ｋｉｍ－Ｉｌｓｕｎｇ．　Ａｌｓｏ，　ｏｎ　ｔｈｅ　ｄｉｓｃｕｓｓｉｏｎ　ｐａｇｅ，　ａｎ　ＩＰ－ｉｄｅｎｔｉｆｉｅｄ　ｕｓｅｒ　ｗｒｏｔｅ　ｉｎ　１０．２２．２００５　ｔｈａｔ　＂ＫｉｍＩｌｓｕｎｇ　ｉｓ　ｎｏｔ　ａ　ｈｅｒｏ！！！＂．　Ｂｌａｈ，　ｙｅｔ　ａｎｏｔｈｅｒ　ｃｏｍｍｕｎｉｓｍ－ｐａｒａｎｏｉｄ　ｋｏｒｅａｎ，　ｍｙ　ｆｒｉｅｎｄ．　Ｎｏ　ＰＯＶ　ｍａｔｅｒｉａｌ　ｔｈｅｒｅ，　ｕｎｌｅｓｓ　ｙｏｕ　ｔｈｉｎｋ　ｉｔ＇ｓ　ｒｅａｌｌｙ　ｎｅｃｅｓｓａｒｙ　ｔｏ　ｍｏｖｅ　ｔｈｅ　２０－ｌｉｎｅ　ｓｏｎｇ　ｌｙｒｉｃｓ　ｔｏ　ｗｉｋｉｓｏｕｒｃｅ．　--Yonghokim 13:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

re: Mariah Carey
Most of the footnotes are references to reviews of Carey's work, or to quotes of hers. The great bulk of them could be removed without altering the factuality of the article (and in the interest of brevity). The excess of links just looks a mess, as if an editor, upset that someone asked for references, decided to go overboard on purpose not saying this is what happens, but that it gives that appearance). --FuriousFreddy 23:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: Jesus
Ta bu, I am not involved in this dispute, user:Silence is. I have adjusted this in your message on the Jesus talk page. Thanks, a.n.o.n.y.m   t 00:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem. :) -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 01:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The quotation in question is a compromise between what I wrote and what Silence wished to write. 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. Ass 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. Paul B 20:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify – 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". Paul B 23:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * addendum: note that all comments about an "ideal race" and "racial suprematism" were added by Silence in this 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! Paul B 09:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Valley2
Don't you think blocking User:Valley2 was a bit harsh? He didn't seem particulary persistent.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Cheese
I've updated Cheese in response to your (accurate) comments at Featured article candidates/Cheese/archive1. Thanks. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Answers.com database dump
Supposedly, they've had hard times keeping the dumps working with their system, so they usually only manually update current event pages. They're also saying it might be fixed by the time we add the link. Ral315 (talk) 07:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Jesus
Hello TBSDY. I'm here to say I'm not a fan of you unprotecting a page two days after I had protected it here.


 * 1) (cur) (last) 02:03, 25 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (→Early life)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 01:58, 25 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (→Notes)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 01:57, 25 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (→Notes)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 01:57, 25 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (→Historicity)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 01:56, 25 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (→Notes)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 01:53, 25 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu
 * 7) (cur) (last) 00:49, 25 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (oops, typo)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 00:48, 25 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (Jesus is seen as more than a Rabbi)
 * 9) (cur) (last) 23:52, 24 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (→Background - no source is given here either, and the Race of Jesus article isn't THAT great either)
 * 10) (cur) (last) 23:50, 24 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (→Background -  to "many envisiage")
 * 11) (cur) (last) 23:49, 24 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (→Background -  to "some Christians")
 * 12) (cur) (last) 23:38, 24 October 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (unprotect)
 * 13) (cur) (last) 16:56, 24 October 2005 Slrubenstein (reverting my well-intentioned but ill-timed edit)
 * 14) (cur) (last) 16:51, 24 October 2005 Slrubenstein (removing an anachronistic term)
 * 15) (cur) (last) 16:52, 22 October 2005 Redwolf24 (Protecting. Quit yer edit warring)

I would prefer the page be unprotected by someone uninvolved. Not someone who unprotects it just so they can edit without being reverted. The article hadn't been discussed, so why protect at all? Plus you didn't remove it from WP:PP. Please next time you wanna edit a protected article, check the reason, and how long ago it was, and if it was recent and the reason is still in effect, go edit a different article. Thanks. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My above tone sounds ruder than was meant, but point is I'd like it if you discussed it with me after such a short protection period. Cheers. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Jesus
Concerning your addition, I sympathize with Silence for this reason: the introduction should be as NPOV as possible. Assuming that Jesus existed, is there anything Christians and non-Christians can agree about? This is a "lowest common denomenator" approach but regarding a controversial topic like Jesus I think it is appropriate. After the first paragraph, there are paragraphs on Jesus' importance to Christians. Also, later in the article, there is space for the Christian (or Gospel) account of Jesus. I ask you, humbly and in good faith, to put the content you care about in those sections and not in the first paragraph. Your content is not being excluded, it is just being put in sections that are specifically identified with Christian points of view. Moreover, your addition is not directly making a claim about Jesus, it is making a claim about a claim that the Gospels make about Jesus. fair enough -- as I said, I DO think there is a place for this in the article. But my point now (point #2) is that you really are making a statement about the Gospels and I think well, we have a link to the article on the Gospels, you should invest your time improving that article rather than fighting over the first paragraph to the Jesus article. remember, the Gospels say LOTS of things, and even you do not think all of them should go in the first paragraph of the Jesus article. I am going one step further and saying those things of special importance to Christians -- or Jews, or Muslims, or any one group -- should not go into the first paragraph either. Let the first paragraph say the minimum, and leave it to other sections to say more. Remember Luke 22:70. There are some things that are best left for others to say, sometimes in other places, somtimes at other times. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I originall wrote "preacher" and someone changed that to Rabbi. I myself wasn't sure but I checked the Gospels and disciples do address Jesus as Rabbi. Personally, I would have no objection to changing that to "Preacher and teacher," but I did read an English version of the NT that has people calling him rabbi. Now, the NT may not call Jesus a healer, but he does heal people, it is something he does a lot. By the way, I adamantly oppose "spiritual healer" it uses "spiritual" in an anachronistic way. There are two things the Gospels describe Jesus as doing a lot: preaching, and healing. Non-christians don't contest that. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You certainly don't need to apologize, in fact, I am flattered that you turned to me, and value your willingness to share with me your views &mdash; after all, we come to Wikipedia to learn and to teach, right? You wrote, "OK, I see what you were saying on the Talk:Jesus page. I just want make it clear that the Gospels detail that Jesus is more than just a healer and teacher (though he was most definitely both of these)." I am glad that you see my point (what I mean is, I know I do not always express myself clearly. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I do want people to understand me!  And sometimes it takes me time to figure out how best to explain myself, and sometimes I need the help of others). I genuinely believe that no one will contest your claim that the Gospels view Jesus as much more than a healer and a preacher; I genuinely believe that there is an appropriate place in the Jesus article, as well as other articles, to make that point. I just think that since people who did not necessarily become Christians after Jesus's crucifixion nevertheless saw him heal people and preach before he was killed, and since the Gospels describe these as Jesus's main activities while he was alive (and for me this is crucial, because as I see it &mdash; my own opinion &mdash; the main difference between Christians and non-Christians is that Christians believe Jesus was resurrected after he was killed (and yes, I understand that this event is connected with other important claims in the Gospels, e.g. the virgin birth and that Jesus is God's son, but it still seems to me that as far as events go, it is the crucifixion + resurrection that are absolutely central for Christians). Non-Christians, for example, Jews and atheists, do not believe Jesus was resurrected.  However, even Jews and atheists can believe that he lived.)  And while he was alive, he preached and healed. Rereading your comments I think part of the problem is that I (or whoever else wrote that sentence) used nouns -- "Jesus was a preacher and healer, or rabbi and healer." Maybe it wouldn't have bothered you as much if we used verbs instead: "According to the account in the Gospels, Jesus spent much of his time preaching and healing;" putting it this way doesn't make any claims about what he "was." I guess my idea was, even people who cannot agree on what Jesus was can agree at least on some of the things he did. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia, at least on my computer, is especially slow. Second, it takes time to write. third, even if I didn;t write anything, I don't see how you could be dissatsisfied with my my change. In fact, the change I made was laready explained by what I wrote in the paragraphs above. I already explained to you what I see the difference between the first and second paragraphs. You should have predicted my response, since I had already explained it to you. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary
Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy editing. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 00:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act
I wholly agree with you, and support your position &mdash; but I'm far too ignorant of the subject to help to do anything about it. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with you in that the USA PATRIOT Act article is highly lacking in worthwhile information. However, you have to take in the history of the article. It began as "Bush is evil and the USA PATRIOT Act is out to get YOU!!!" After many months, some factual information has been added. However, every fact is quickly accompanied by a warning that the act is evil. I have tried to temper down the inflamatory edits with referenced facts, but it is usually just me against everyone else. Then, I run into Zephram the Troll. Dealing with a troll like that just takes all the enjoyment out of Wikipedia and I lose complete interest in all of it. Oh - and you are correct. I am not a big monkey house. Kainaw 14:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I sympathise with you over Zephram Stark &mdash; he's an incorrigible PoV-pusher, and what in Greek would be called "exypnovlakas" (I'd better not translate). As for Ta bu shi da yu's reply on my Talk page, you're quite right of course; give me six weeks or so, and I'll be able to help... There are five more weeks of term with an unusually heavy teaching load, then a week or so of Admissions interviews. Then I'll be back up to my normal editing capacity; at the moment I'm a couple of days behind checking my Watchlist, and falling behind on my essay-marking too. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:MEA Template
I removed your addition to the template for three reasons. First it's not a complete list and should not be prominantly featured until it is. Second, there are many subprojects within WP:MEA that are not listed on the template because they are not active and I fear that the list you generated will be no different. Third, there is a very similar and public domain project already listed (Easton's Dictionary). Reflex Reaction 14:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I also think it was highly inappropriate to link to your user page in a template. --Reflex Reaction 14:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments at my RFA, I hope they alleviate some of your concerns, and thank you for your thoughts because no man is above criticism. --Reflex Reaction 16:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

French user Treanna
To explain a little, Treanna was the more active french wikipedian. He is historian in fact, working on old scrool (paper), and spend lot of time on wikipédia. He had something bad this summer, a little aneuryms and Phlebitis, the french community was worry to learn he went to hospital for several chirurgical operations, but he return safe to wikipedia, around the first week september. The 19, Anthere -one other mythique wikipedian on fr- received an email annoncing the death of Treanna. The french wikipedia is growing to a big website like en, but we still have something from the begginning, and we still have some point of an happy family working together, and more for the old wikipedians. Now we miss him, as the main french wikipedian he was and stay "mythic" and our "mythic friend" ^-^.
 * fr:Discussion Utilisateur:Treanna/Livre d'or

That's all, if you want say or annonce this to other english wikipedians, say them than all french user have to thanks Treanna and them too :]

881 Yug (talk)  22:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: WP:SIGN
I've replied at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-10-24/ArbCom election. Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 23:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA/SV
I deeply appreciate your support at my RFA. Sincerely, St|eve 04:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Iraqi insurgency
Hi Ta bu. There's been a lot of action over at Iraqi insurgency. If you check the history, it looks like one guy keeps reverting to his favorite version (with 3 or 4 people reverting him), and whenever he gets blocked for violating the 3RR he just creates a new account and reverts again. I was blocking him for 3RR violations, but at this point I've become too involved, so it would inappropriate for me to use my admin priveleges. Wanna take a look, and maybe keep an eye on this one? Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 11:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi There
Hello Ta Bu shi da yu, I haven't been using Wikipedia that much, I have however made some changes to some of the entries for Berowra Heights, Berowra Creek and Berowra.

Jpmanalo 01:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Page move
G'day Ta bu shi da yu, could you please use your magical admin powers to please move "Weird Al" Yankovic's third album to Dare to Be Stupid as per the naming convention set out at Naming conventions. I'm requesting this of you rather than going through WP:RM as the process takes to long and that this move doesn't require a vote. Thank you very much. Ianblair23 (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes mate, please change "Dare To Be Stupid" to "Dare to Be Stupid" as the word "to" is a preposition, and according to the naming convention all prepositions in album titles are to be in lowercase. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that mate, very much appreciated. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

RFD
Hello, Ta bu shi da yu, not sure on the right protocol for this but I think an admin should look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Multimedia_literacy and maybe remove the RFD.AdelaideRandel 06:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

--many thanks you are a gentleman(or women if the case may be) and a scholar.AdelaideRandel 07:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice tidy edit
good compromise Cheers! Pedant 07:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi
The topic of the barrier is pretty contentious, but both sides make sure not to refer to it by it's physical composition. The Israelis insisted on calling it a "fence" in order to emphasize it's non-discriminatory nature (a "fence" sounds less pushy that a "wall"), it's being "temporary", and it's being "for security purposes only" and not a political barrier. The Palestinians insist on calling it a "wall" for mostly the opposite reasons: It is "permanent", is a "political border", and although it does not entirely consist of concrete, it might as well be because the razor wires, cameras, motion sensors, etc, make it just as impermeable. So for Israelis, it's more an image thing, and it annoys them when Palestinians point out the effects of it, while for Palestinians, it's the effects that count, and it annoys them when Israelis try to soften its image. Thank you for taking the time to vote on my RfA, I appreciate it very much! Ramallite (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

??
"Seems like some nut has sent an open letter to Jimbo. Let's all point and laugh!"

Harsh words. Cruel. Not funnny.

Rex071404  216.153.214.94 01:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about what you said regarding Daniel Brandt. Who is SlimVirgin, who is persecuting him and why? Rex071404  216.153.214.94 01:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

It is just an issue of time
I wondered when does he have time for all that. Zeq 05:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt
I see that you blocked him for a week. I had just blocked him for 24 hours 9 hours before you. I believe the earlier block takes precedence, so if you want your 7-day block to hold you'll have to unblock and reblock. I can't decide which block duration is appropriate (So, I'll let you decide). Broken S 07:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure I understand you (and perhaps I'm mistaken), but you can see at the block log (here) that I blocked him several hours before you did. It is my understanding that if a block is made while he is still blocked it does not take effect (priority is given to older blocks). If you want the newer block to stick you have to unblock and reblock  him. Broken S 15:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's the shorter block that sticks, regardless of which came first. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but I did leave a message here. I figured he was reading that thread. I should have left a notice on his talk page too. Do what you want, I'm fine with either block length (since you told him it was a week on his talk page, perhaps a week is best). Broken S 23:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I just unblocked him to dispell fears that his AfD is rigged against him. I hope you don't mind. I gave him another warning. Broken S 02:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia-watch
Hi,

I'm leaving this message on the page of all the users mentioned by Brandt on this new page of his wikipeida-watch site. As you can see from the link, he's put together a list of the Wikipedia users that he sees as his enemies, and is trying to collect as much personal information as he can about each of them. Just thought I should let you know. Canderson7 12:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
I just wanted to thank you again for your support of my RfA which finally passed! I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sick
It's just the usual illness I've had for years, just a bad patch again. Thanks for the concern though :) -- sannse (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

GWB's half-brother?
Yo, TBSDY, I saw you say on the Talk:Neopets page that you were's George W. Bush's half-brother, is this true, or were you just being sarcastic? - Kookykman| (t) (c)

Signpost
Trust me...I'm not going to ballistic and quit or anything :) I'm just a little mad that I missed my personal deadline, which I try to keep every week.  Thanks for your comments, though.  Ral315 (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's occasionally nice to know that the server and myself aren't the only two people reading it :) Ral315 (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

My Sig
I don't know what quite happened with my sig, I've had no trouble up until now. I don't know what is up with the sigs right this minute, but other people seem to be having trouble with them too. I am now using a "substitute" sig until I can fix it, as it is still playing up. Thanks for letting me know.
 * No, it's fine that you let me know. Thanks again, FireFox ™ 13:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

EW - thanks
Thanks for the Wikipedia pointers and for the kind words about my EW website. I've put a lot of work into it lately, and it's nice to hear at least someone appreciates it! Toastk 03:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt
I think you may be interested in this nomination. It seems to have caused quite a stirr - and more voices from experienced, unbiased editors like you would be appreciated. The discussion seem to be a bit heated in a few places, and is already attracting sockpuppets. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you stated in your vote that user Radiant's opinons matters highly to you, and in case you are not monitoring the vote as closely as I am (being the nomiantor at all), I thought I'd let you know that Radiant has changed his vote to neutral. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for leaving me a message. It's always nice to know the reasosn behind things (hey, that's what draws us to wikipedia) and it's always comforting to know that people care enough to cast a vote. Whether in favour or against is a secondary issue. Hope to meet you some day somewhere. Regards. Halibutt 01:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Disturbing edit...
Please see WP:AN and see if you think any actions should be taken. Thanks. --Nlu 07:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding what I was saying on IRC
O.K., here's an ACLU flyer (.pdf file) summarizing what I was saying:. Notice the bit that says "Permits non-citizens to be jailed based on mere suspicion and to be denied re-admission to the US for engaging in free speech." From what I can tell, that's referring to Section 412: MANDATORY DETENTION OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS, etc.. I'm apparently wrong about American citizens, though, from what I'm reading just now. That, or I haven't read enough... there's enough anti-terrorism laws going by us Yanks now that it's easy to mix them up. I know that suspected terrorists, even Americans, can be detained without a warrant, but I don't have a source, nor am I sure whether or not that's from the PATRIOT Act (sorry!) or a combination of that and others. Also, I know that the second PATRIOT Act (which AFAIK hasn't yet been introduced to Congress) has a provision in it that allowed for the removal of citizenship rights for Americans born in the U.S. (again, I don't have a source, but I read that in the San Francisco Chronicle, the most prominent Bay Area newspaper, circa October 2004 (I think. It could have been much later, up to about June 2005. Really sorry I don't have sources, I know that this isn't very helpful without them)) Just so you know, the ACLU page on the PATRIOT Act is located here. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful, mate: I was hoping to be able to pull the texts I wanted out of my hat, but it's 2:20 AM and my searching skills are slowing down :). Hopefully this'll do you some good. Good luck! Blackcap (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Grand, all the best to you on that! I'm chagrined to not have more sources... as an American I really feel like I ought to know more about this law. Unfortunately, there isn't that much press about it, and what I know about it and other anti-terrorism laws are mostly from NPR, the paper, libraries and librarians, and conversations&mdash;all things that are hard to go back to and get sources from (as I forget dates on which I read or heard things, and so on). The Library of Congress has quite a bit of info on the act (not to mention everything else): here's the congressional record for it. I imagine that if you search THOMAS you'll get some more. Sorry to just shove a search engine at you, but I'm too damn tired to do it myself. Hopefully I'll get involved in the article, I just can't do it right now... let me know how it goes if I don't wander over there. :) Blackcap (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, Jesus, what have I done? Yes, I'd love to, but please don't count on it. I'm going back to work in a few days, and will be edit-incapable (for a short while), but I'll do what I can. Give me a while to read it over, and if I still feel up for it I'll pitch in. It looks like a fun one to work on... I'll try my best. Blackcap (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. See you there ;) Blackcap (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Pneumonia
Hey Ta bu,

I read what you wrote on the FAC. Just wanted to let you know you and yours have my best wishes for an uneventful and uncomplicated recovery for your dad. :) Kind regards encephalon  05:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for your kind words and best of luck to your father - InvictaHOG 10:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act, Title VII
O.K.! Here's my first addition to the PATRIOT Act: please tell me what you think. I'm having some difficulty making way through the text of the Act... there's so much legalese that I have some difficulty parsing the sentences; hopefully I've got the jist right. Anyway, since you're much more experienced in this project I'd love your feedback. Thanks, mate, Blackcap (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Fan-tastic! I'm going to try and get started on Title VIII next. Great, I'm glad you liked it. Cheers, Blackcap (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden's Declaration of War
When editing wikisource, if you want to leave your Wikipedia username, type in the brackets... Wikipedia:User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu. freestylefrappe 17:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:Usc-chap
O.K. What I want to create here is a template, similar to usc, that links to Cornell's U.S.C. pages, but to the chapter, not the section. However, after trying for a little bit, I can't figure out how to do this. I saw that you fixed the links to Cornell for sections: do you think that you could do this for chapters? So that you get an idea of the sort of page I want to link to, here's the specific one: Title 18, Chapter 97. I just can't figure out a way to have a modifiable link in the manner of usc. I'm not very good at reading the source, although I'm trying, so I haven't been able to do it myself... and thanks for any help you can give. Blackcap (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort, but no dice: both of those are pulling up 404 errors. If you're right, and they don't have a script that allows jumps to chapters, then I can just include the full link and play it on the fly, which is fine. It'd just be nice to have an easy template that did the work, but it is by no means essential. Thanks again for trying... if you come up with any more ideas, let me know. Cheers! Blackcap (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)