User talk:Vanished user 2345/Archive 2

BLP
Eugene, thanks for collapsing the discussion on the CMT talk page, but it would be better if you hadn't made the comments that started the discussion in the first place. It's a good idea to refrain from making snarky comments about Price, or any of the other sources used in the article, because it's very easy for other editors to see them as violations of the biographies of living persons policy. If you're not familiar with the WP:BLP policy, please make sure you are; especially note that it applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including article talk pages, user talk pages, etc. Even if you don't think you're violating the BLP policy, you don't want to find yourself in a situation where you're getting accused of doing so. It's an easy and fast path to getting yourself blocked. In fact, I would say that in general you don't seem to realize that you're skating on thin ice. You could have very easily been blocked for edit warring when Black Kite protected the article recently; if you get blocked once, it's very easy for others to see you as a troublemaker, and for you to get blocked again. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay Akhilleus, I'll relax a bit. I'll also read WP:BLP again.  Out of curiosity, how far does this go though?  Am I not even supposed to call attention to Price's use of "Coleman Theological Seminary" as opposed to the full Johnnie Coleman Theological Seminary? Or is that fair game as it has relevancy for the RS issue? Eugene (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Eugene. As far as Price calling it "Coleman Theological Seminary", I think that's a non-issue. (Should be "Colemon", though.) Easily seen as a shortened version of the name, rather than as some kind of dodge. For assessing whether Price should be called a scholar/academic, the important feature of the institution is that it is not accredited. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Christ Myth Theory: Who's recruiting and where
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Atheism&oldid=356724643 NJMauthor (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've submited a report to the AN/I. SlimVirgin has a lot of friends though, so I'm not confident anything will be done. Eugene (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

A request
Eugene, as part of the dispute-resolution process, I'm asking you once again to tone down your approach to the historicity of Jesus issue, whether at Christ myth theory or anywhere else. The specific problems are the offensive comparisons (comparing sources to Holocaust deniers, skinheads, flat-earthers etc), the belittling of sources in other ways leading to BLP issues, the belittling of editors who disagree with you, and the frequent undoing of other people's work. I see that even one of your supporters, in content terms, has made the same request, yet even as you told him you would try to relax a bit  you were edit warring at Historicity of Jesus to try to force in the Holocaust denial comparison.

I also request that you stop asking Bill to revert for you; or if you're not asking him that you specifically request that he stop it. It's fine for editors to agree, including when they agree all the time, but it needs to be clear that they are independent editors. Bill has made only 114 edits to articles, and is beginning to look like a single-purpose account.

A less aggressive approach would serve you better, and given the number of experienced editors now watching Christ myth theory if you would let them do their work you'd almost certainly find you wouldn't object to the article in the end. But the current situation will cause reasonable people to wander off, and when that happens there's no chance of the article gaining genuine consensus. SlimVirgin talk  contribs 10:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll note here for future reference that this was your response to my request. :) SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 15:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. I was going to submit the AN/I request ever since NMJauthor informed me about the votestacking last evening. But when that came through I was already on my way out the door so I didn't get a chance to respond until this morning. I'm entirely willing to adopt a "less aggressive approach", but we need to all play by the same rules. You seem to disagree about that last point.

As for Bill, if you have a problem with him, talk to him. He's an adult (I assume). I'm no more responsible for his behavior than you are responsible for Crum375's behavior--though at least Bill and I don't use the same catch phrases (e.g. "dog bites man" & ). Eugene (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, it's up to you, because you're an adult too. We can either clunk through the DR process to the next stage, or you can take the advice of all the editors who've approached you. Just about everyone is finding your approach problematic, and though I'm doubtless wrong as always, it's unlikely that everyone is else too. So please turn things around. It's not a game, not a battleground, and the snide responses, caustic analogies, and ruleslawyering (when it suits) don't move us forward. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 16:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been asking you to agree to the highest level of the DR process (formal mediation) from almost the word "go" but you've avoided that again and again. You seem intent on not having to explain a number of your edits and I can only assume that's because you know that the sources aren't on your side. As for my approach, I took a day off Wikipedia to relax a bit and I've resolved to avoid BLP issues (real or imagined) as far as possible. I've also resolved to be a bit more calm on the talk page.  But that doesn't mean that I'm willing to just roll over and let you rewrite the article in such a way that the quality and clarity go "down the drain", as dbachmann said --especially when you use underhanded tricks. Eugene (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've explained that I see the issue as a behavioral one, but you want to start another mediation about content. As for your wikibreak it lasted just 22 hours so it's not really worth mentioning. :) I stress again that I'm not talking about content here, but about your approach. I think the content issues could be fairly easily sorted out by the other editors on the page. But so long as you are there editing in the same way that's unlikely to happen, in my view. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 17:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * SV, if you have something to say to me, please feel free to use my Talk page, rather than asking Eugene to "reel me in" as if I was his little trained minion (which is obviously what you think). I have the same right to revert as any other editor and, it should be noted, that I've never violated the 3RR, nor have I have I ever been blocked or topic-banned.  I always respect the rules of Wikipedia, except for one instance when I was fairly new and didn't know what I was doing, nor about the rule that I violated.


 * Also, I have only a limited amount of time to dedicate to editing, so I just pick what I'm currently interested in and 90% of my time is devoted to that area. If you go back about year to when I first started editing, you will see that the majority of my edits had to do with the American civil war (which is one of my favorite historical eras, by the way - you probably would not believe that amount of books I own or have read about the ACW).  Therefore, my account is not a SPA - my contribs merely reflect the amount of time I have at my disposal.


 * And yes, I am an adult, although I must admit to having a charming child-like innocence, kind of like the picture on your talk page. :)


 * Finally, I think we should have a formal mediation to resolve our issues (think of it as marriage counseling). Not for all of the issues still on the list, since I think some can be resolved without mediation.  However, others can not, IMHO.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Volney and Dupuis
Weren't Volney and Dupuis arguing you don't need an historical Jesus to explain the NT? Rather than arguing Jesus never existed? Or is that the same thing? I'm going to bed now. Anthony (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not particularly familiar with advocates that far back. The article though mentions that Dupuis at least flatly denied the existence of Jesus and sources that assertion with an article by Wells. Here's a quote from one of Dupuis' works:"'I know, that it could be possible, that they [(i.e. the authors of the gospels)] might have either deceived us, or that they might have been mistaken themselves about the particulars of the life of Christ, without this same error being prejudicial to his existence. But again, even with regard to the existence, what confidence or trust can we have in authors, who deceive, or who are mistaken in all the rest, especially when it is known, that there is a sacred legend, of which the Sun, under the name of Christ, is the hero? Is it not very natural, to be induced to believe, that the worshippers of the Sun-Christ may have given him a historical existence, just as the worshippers of that same Sun gave him one under the names of Adonis, Bacchus, Hercules and Osiris, although the enlightened leaders of these religions knew very well, that Bacchus, Osiris, Hercules and Adonis had never existed as men, and that they were merely the God-Sun personified? ... My object shall have been attained, if I have succeeded in convincing a small number of my readers (because the many I abandon to the priests) and that it should seem to them proved, that Christ is merely the Sun, that the Mysteries of the Christian religion have the Light for object, like those of the Persians and of Mithras, of Osiris, Adonis, &c., and that this religion differs only in the names from the ancient religions; that the foundation is absolutely the same; and that finally a good Christian is also a worshipper of that luminary, which is the source of all light. ... Christ was no more a real man, than the Hercules of the twelve labors.' Charles François Dupuis, The Origin of All Religious Worship, 1798"Eugene (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I know I said I was going to bed but I just got hooked by this. Anthony (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's funny! :)  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Constantin Brunner
I responded to your posting on Brunner Barrett Pashak (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Eisenman
That's better. Anthony (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidents#user:BruceGrubb_and_WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT_on_talk:Christ_myth_theory
This isn't going to do anything useful. WP:ANI is a place to create or intensify drama, not solve problems. You're looking for Requests_for_comment/User_conduct. But even that is unlikely to help.

Also, citing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT will almost never motivate an administrator to do much of anything. WP:TE is what you're looking for. However, I seriously doubt that anything can be done about this particular issue; if I thought there were anything that would help, I would have already done it. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to suspect that you are right. It's a bit depressing, but oh well.  I suppose I could just add another FAQ entry to the one on my page that addresses Bruce's quote lists.  I could post a link to it each time Bruce brings them up.  But I had hoped that it would just end all together. Eugene (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

William Lane Craig 2
Hey Eugene, do you think it would be ok to add "Evangelical" to the lead in the WLC article, so that it reads like this (which is the way it currently reads):


 * William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an Evangelical apologist, theologian, and philosopher known for his contributions to the philosophy of time, philosophy of religion, and historical Jesus studies.

Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Clarification: I meant to say, can the "Evangelical" label be used without an RS that specifically says so? Thanks again.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that would be okay. I don't think anyone would dispute that Criag is an Evangelical, in at least some sense or other. Eugene (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I just wasn't sure. I agree, but since this is a BLP, I just wanted to make sure.  Thank you.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

4th paragraph Wikilink
Just I thought I'd be bold for once. Anthony (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Pseudo-scholarship

 * If its not sourced it is OR, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bad Job
Template:Bad Job has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Hi Eugene. I'm writing to apologize about this. I was still smarting over this mischaracterization. It won't happen again. Anthony (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

BruceGrubb
I haven't done a thing about it. Getting together RfCs is time-consuming and unlikely to lead to a resolution in the near future, so it's a distasteful task, and I've been busy lately. So if you're motivated, go ahead, and I'll contribute; otherwise, I'll get it together, but not quickly. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Christ myth theory, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Snore. Eugene (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Eugene, you need to take this template very seriously. It is highly inappropriate for a Christian to edit topics related to Christianity. Furthermore, your use of Christian sources, such as Oxford University Press, is undermining the credibility of this project. All in all, you are are a net negative in maintaining Wikipedia's liberal bias, and should be banned indefinitely. Vesal (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the really crazy part: given all the ridiculous things that have actually been said in seriousness on the CMT talk page, if you hadn't used the phrase "liberal bias" in your last sentence I wouldn't have known you were joking. Eugene (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been following a discussion at COI Noticeboard regarding an acupuncturist editing Acupuncture - a controversial page, with possible pseudoscience issues, but some fairly rigorous scrutiny from real science. Two editors are arguing for his removal. On sum, unless a new argument that has not already been put in that case is found for excluding Christians from Christian articles, I can't vote for it. Eugene writes well and has a good grasp of the sources; this makes him a useful contributer. I haven't yet seen him misrepresent a source, apart from a couple of minor genuine mistakes. He puts his view strongly, and for my taste is too bold. But these can be dealt with through argument and application of WP remedies and guidelines, such as WP:NPOV, WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:CIVIL, which I believe he needs to work on. (Yawn???) Anthony (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)