User talk:ZorgBuford5858

Hi! I just want to thank you for your improvements to the Henrik Ibsen article. They were really excellent and I agree with you in all the concerns you brought up on the talk-page. I hope you'll continue to be bold and improve upon this or any other wikipedia article you might see need fixing in the future. Thanks again. Shanes 06:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that whenever you start changing "some of the biased and weakly-worded language of the second and third paragraphs", that it's a good sign you shouldn't be marking this edit as minor.--Prosfilaes 14:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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 07:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. please sign your comments using ~ notation :-) Thanks! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:43, 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)
 * Ya, I know that. Notice that I talked about secular politics, not the leadership of a church. I think that it would be best to add info about that into the article if it's not already there. Anyway, I gotta go. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Your understanding of NPOV
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)

Tale o' the Tape
Drop this code onto your user page sans the "nowiki" tags.

-- Levine2112 discuss 04:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG Views about women
My brain is leaking out my ears. What is needs is a big ol Weasel and OR tag up front as it is FULL of OR. Shot info

Hello, please pardon me whereas I am new to wikipedia and don't know proper protocol. regarding the article "christian views about women" it is my opinion that the topic is to volatile and there are certain editor(s) who will never give up in using this format to promote their point of view. I am of the opinion this article will never be meet Wikipedia standards and should be removed from the servers. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.95.79 (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Jackie-O Motherfucker
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Jackie-O Motherfucker, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Jackie-O Motherfucker seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Jackie-O Motherfucker, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. When you recently edited RealNetworks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PCWorld (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)