User talk:Archola/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 2 Two Color Data website, KHM03 and alleged cabals 2.1 Unacceptable threats 2.2 Get KHM03 Back think tank 2.3 Welcome back! 3 OOOH! A Project Page! 4 Two RfAs thank-you notes 5 Christian stuff not directly related to Jesus article 5.1 Martin Luther articles 5.2 True Christianity according to Swedenborg 5.3 CKB and CW 5.4 Interested in Helping Start an Uncontroversial One? 5.5 Christianity 5.6 Christianity article 6 Christian views of Jesus 7 Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages#Images_and_Appearance 8 Just for laughs 9 Barnstars and other awards 10 Smile 11 Avery? Who knows? 12 Lutherans and Christians and Jew! Oh, My! 13 Blocking dial-up Earthlink and/or Qwest Communications 14 Unsigned Threats 15 Please give your voice in this matter 16 Interesting times 17 Please help on Mathematics 18 Jesus subpage

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Billy Currington Skirgaila Broadcast designer Chitra indica Schloß Artstetten See Homer Run Not a stub. Collin Raye Whitewater Valley Railroad Darcy Clay Cassie's Brother Lubbock sound Law and Gospel Done Rascal Flatts Not a stub, but "band history" section needs some work. Recreant Qelelevu A Hard Road Album article; not marked as a stub. Travis Tritt Whitewashing Merged, no longer a stub. Midway Airport (British Columbia)

Cleanup Order of Aviz Cleaned up by User:Milesli. Self-regulation theory Attempted cleanup; needs expert attention. Stacey McClean Dead link. Merge CorelDRAW Done. List of English words of Yiddish origin Already merged. Streams (networking API) Already merged. Add Sources Per Elofsson Child Jesus Source added; may need more. Mohammad bin Sulayem dead link Wikify John Michael Montgomery First Family Entertainment Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel OfficeWikified by User:Dr Gangrene. Expand You're either with us, or against usOn the table is a proposed merge with false dilemma. Tuscan cooking Eucharistic discipline

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, SuggestBot. Now, let me add one: Viral Eukaryogenesis needs attention from an expert in cellular or molecular evolution. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 11:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two Color Data website, KHM03 and alleged cabals

[edit] Unacceptable threats

I'm blocking you for 24 hours for this unacceptable edit summary [1]. Playing with people's privacy, or threatening as much is unacceptable. I will be investigating this futher, so if I have misunderstood what you meant by this, please post a convincing explanation below, and I will consider it. --Doc ^ask? 23:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you believe that I'm making a threat. A friend of mine User:KHM03 was forced to resign from Wikipedia when an off-site webpage posted personal information about himself and his family. This lead to threats against his family and colleagues. I also posted here about this incident (although since I don't have a meta account, I had to sign with my KDSI IP 65.121.136.204). The off-site page is on Wikipedia's spam blocklist, and I have been asked not to reveal the URL on Wikipedia pages.

The site that cyberstalked KMH03 has content very similar to User talk:John1838 and User talk:J1838, which alledges a "Christian cabal" emerging on the Christianity page. Far from making a threat, I share SOPHIA's concern that this offsite page will take this as further evidence of a cabal, unwarrented though it is. I've been watching this site, and I know that this site has been closely watching some editors on Wikipedia. Although I'm not on their list at the moment, far from making a threat I am feeling threatened and trying to warn others.

I don't know what else I can say. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 00:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm unblocking you. It appears I have misunderstood your remarks. I apologise for any assumption of bad faith. However, with certain recent events in mind, your edit summary realy worried me. Please don't use edit summaries to comment or discuss, they are really only to summarise the nature of a post. Edits can be removed later, but edit summaries are always there. --Doc ^ask? 00:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That was quick: you edit conflcted with me when I tried to post the above explanation. Again, the short answer is that a friend of mine has been threatened, I'm worried that I may be threatened myself and I'm trying to warn others. It may indeed be time for me to take the wikibreak that I've been considering taking. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 00:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't go - it was a simple mistake and I'm glad someone got my point on WP:AN/I. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 00:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I do understand - have a good break. E-mail if you get bored. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 00:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Archola. I'm really sorry that misunderstanding happened last night, as I think there's enough tension here already! I didn't know about it until later, when I saw Sophia's comments on Doc's talk page, but I would certainly have tried to help if I had known. Enjoy your wiki-break, and come back soon to us. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 22:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Get KHM03 Back think tank

Since you are the direct contact with KMH03, I'll use this place for the discussion to convince KHM03 to return. I have many ideas, besides the ones you have already communicated to him for me. I wonder if he responded?

However, here is another one that should work logically, although it may not be ethical or practical so I propose this only as a brainstorm and to be hypothetical and theoretical in nature--in the form of an argument, not as a proposal of an actual practice that I advocate. Indeed, to implement it would be as unethical as the tactics used to drive him away because the ends do not justify the means.

Nonetheless, here it is: KMH03's logic is that because he was contacted "where it hurts" he must leave wikipedia to give in, I guess, to what the stalker wants him to do, given the use of these tactics. So, we know that such an action/tactic is effective--it works in the mind of KHM03 to get him to leave--do what the stalking party wants him to do. Well, if it works one way, it should logically work the other way, too, no? I mean his info is still out there--that does not change. So, therefore, can't all his friends (or those who want him to come back) simply use the same tactics, or threaten the same tactics, for the purpose of his friend-stalker to get their way (to get him to return?). If there are more of us then the enemy stalker, then should not he come back for the very same reason he left--we have him where it hurts? If KMH03 can be convinced that unless he comes back, he will get MORE letters, etc. (from friends who pretend to be enemies--in order for him to take it seriously we may have to sound very serious), demanding that he return or they will continue to stalk him, etc, then this would force him to come back for the very same reason he left. Again, this is not an actual proposition but it should work in theory, and hypothetically speaking-- what would KMH03 due in such a situation? I'd like his answer. This is a type of fighting fire with fire. I just set fires in the other direction and get him running back to this place that relatively speaking is much safer (one person vs. many). The real object of this mind-game is to demonstrate the error of his decison to give in the the stalker by leaving and giving them what they want, in effect encouraging such a tactic to be used against others. So, in reality this is just a variation of one of my earlier arguments. Giovanni33 05:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Gio I'm hoping I've misunderstood what you are suggesting as if I haven't then this is the most morally and logically screwed up proposal I have ever heard. To make a guy who is feeling threated feel even worse because his friends are after him too is sadistic to say the least. KHM03 made his choice and we must respect that. I want him back too but the way to achieve that is for the project as a whole to take a definitive stand against the real life stalkers and create an environment where there is real practical support for individuals targeted by these sad creepy losers. I would NEVER support any action that threatened another user in ANY way as whatever the otherside chooses to do is up to them but we don't have to descend to the gutter with them. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 08:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you did misunderstand. I suggest you re-read. I tried to make myself clear. This is not an actual proposal for any kind of action of the sort. Infact, don't I clearly say that it would be as unethical as the event which caused him to leave? What this is, is an argument for him to re-think about the power he is giving those who stoop to use this tactic. He/she should not be granted the power to effect his departure, or else, anyone can start sending off letters to get him to do what they want, which would be absurd. Yes, he has a right to make his own decision, and I dont presume to know enough about the details to determine what is right for him. However, based on what I do know, I don't agree with his decision. Ofcourse, its fully his right to do what he thinks is best given his priorities. That goes without saying. However, that doesnt mean I have to agree with him, nor not try to change his mind, esp. if I think (based on what I know) is making a mistake by leaving. I also don't want this tactic to be given the success. If Gator did not leave, would this have happened? And, if he leaves, who is next, encouraged by the success of this letter ploy (which really should just be ignored). So, no, I only want to use the power of reason to convince him to reconsider and rejoing his efforts at building the best free encylopedia there is. This is my sole tactic, and that is perfectly fine, and ethical standpoint.Giovanni33 09:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess you don't have kids - they do complicate things which is why I think at this time KHM03 did the right thing. However wikipedia as a whole has this issue to address as they specifically encourage new users to fully identify themselves(see WP:U) with no warning as to what real life problems this has caused. I have discussions here that would never take place in real life as people are very cagey about their beliefs and passions face to face. That to me is one of the wonders of this place a you really learn new stuff and ways of looking at things. Until my interactions with Str1977 I had no idea how much of a humanist I was and that has really helped me organise my thoughts and present them in a clearer manner. The down side is that some people go over the top and don't know how to handle people who don't agree with them in a mature way - hence the stalking. I'm glad this was only "thinking aloud" and I understand your point on giving in to bullies but wikipedia is only a hobby and if your real life is threatened then until wikipedia sorts out how to deal with this opting out is the best way. Maybe the next generation of online encyclopedia will have sorted these problems. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 10:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well we just have different POV's about this matter. I certainly agree with you, that Wikipedia has a wonderful side-effect in addition to its lofty goal--people come together and get exposed to a diverse range of ideas and knowlege, and it is in the contrast with other's POV that one fully understands and develops their own mature thinking, including putting it in perspective. We are what we do and if we help to bulid an encylopedia, we become, to a degree, encylopedic. :)

But, we do disagree about KMH03, kids or no kids, the prankster only sent in a letter, probably doesnt even live in the same continent, and there is no reason to think he or his kids would ever be in any real harm. The person smoking nearby would be a much greater real threat to his kids well-being, or crossing the green-light at the intersection. Sending a letter is just a petty attempt at intimidation and they probably get a kick out of doing it, but I would not empower such a sophmoric act by giving it a big reaction, much less leaving alltogther. This is what they want, and this will give him/her great encouragement. Ofcourse, I don't know the details. Maybe it was much more serious than I realize. Maybe the letter had details letting him know that they were really stalking nearby, had photos of his kids, made specific threats should he come back here, etc (a matter for the police, for sure), but I hightly doubt this is the case. If it is, then it would be understandable. If its what I think it is, then KM03 should not give it a second thought.Giovanni33 10:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind if you use my talk page, but I felt that I had to respond.

I think I understand where you're coming from, Giovanni, but it was exactly that kind of "don't let them win" attitude that got me kicked out of Wartburg College. Also, if you fight fire with fire, everyone gets burned.

KHM03 most definitely felt threatened and we should not push him. If he comes back, it will months later if at all. I have not heard from him since April 18th. OTOH, it's good to show that people respect KHM03 to want him back, even if they don't always agree with his POV.

I don't have children myself, but I shudder to think what would happen if people started stalking my neice and nephew. Overall, I agree with SOPHIA. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 15:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Geo might be on the right track, though it seems to be missing the target. Obviously, the best solution is to find the double blue person, and mail them a bunch of gospel tracts! And good ones too :D. Then maybe they'll just, you know, stop being all "oooOOOoo im gunna harass every1 cus I don't lik teh Christians oooOOOooo" Homestarmy 15:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly convinced it's User:John1838. Also, it's not just Christians—there are some non-Christians that are concerned about this site, for serious violations of privacy and security. I think sending them Gospel tracts would simply confirm their paranoia about a Christian cabal. The site seems to me to be very Big Brother-ish in their views and tactics.

NOTE: This is NOT censorship. Cyberstalking and cyberbullying are NOT forms of free speech. The website may not be directly responsible for the cyberstalking, but by releasing personal information they are indirectly responsible. To their credit, they have removed the personal information and made it their policy not to release such information in the future. However, some would say too little, too late. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 15:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: Giovanni has been banned for 24 hours for violating 3RR at Christianity. And thus the saga continues...

[edit] Welcome back!

Just archive the above or elevate KHM03 to subpage status - he'll be keeping good company! I think further discussions can wait 24 hours or just move it all over to Gio as this is his idea. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 18:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it out. It shows that Giovanni wants KHM03 to come back. IMHO that's an effective counterargument against the DWEEC allegations. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 18:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OOOH! A Project Page!

Since folks wanted me involved... 8-) Bob --CTSWyneken 01:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two RfAs thank-you notes

Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk

Image:Danavecpurpletiger.jpg

A belated thank you to you for Supporting my RFA! It passed 54/2/3, much better than I expected! I am still finding my feet as an Administrator, and so far I am enjoying the experience. I am honoured that you felt I was ready to take up this position, and wish to thank you formally! I hope I can live up to your expectations of me. Once again, thank you! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 18:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian stuff not directly related to Jesus article

[edit] Martin Luther articles

I could use a fresh view at Martin Luther, Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies (Martin Luther) You don't have to wade into that hornet's nest, just let me know what you think. Bob--CTSWyneken 18:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It makes my eyes hurt. I've started looking those articles over, but I'm afraid to get involved. Since I'm a Lutheran, people might think I'm another member of the "Lutheran cabal" like you, drboisclair and Stan Zegel. Not that there is a Lutheran cabal. I've never even worked with Zegel. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 18:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'll put the comment in the same place (poor CTS, not only did he not gain adminship, but we're writing under his thank you notes). Anyway, I'll read those tomorrow, although a quick-scan of the section on "Martin Luther and the Jews" in the "Martin Luther" article indicates that it probably shouldn't be disputed. But, I'll read that section ad the whole article (and the other two) tomorrow. •Jim62sch• 21:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'll read the ML stuff in the AM. •Jim62sch• 01:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] True Christianity according to Swedenborg

I am sure, so here is something else: True christianity. Looks POV-fork to me. It may be salvageable as a doctrine article, but as it is currently it is entirely unsourced OR. Please take a look? KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As opposed to what, Fake Christianity? Hypocritical Christianity? Alas, I'll take a look. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 22:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, as opposed to the Great Apostasy. This should get interesting.... Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 22:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said, possibly POV fork, although I'm not certain it couldn't be re-worked into something actually useful. As it is, though, it reads a little like a Missive from a True Believer (as opposed to an NPOV article, presumably from an apostate.) Thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're working on it. This is far enough outside my own beliefs that research will be required. I do think that User:MonkeeSage made a decent start on the de-POVing. Arch O. La ^{Grigrory Deepdelver} 18:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I read the talk page. Thanks again - it may be outside your own beliefs but I know you are an editor who can be counted on to examine articles without allowing their own beliefs to color their view or editing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very encouraging. I've been needing words of encouragement lately. Arch O. La ^{Grigrory Deepdelver} 18:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'm glad my timing was good, then - I am certain I am not the only editor here who has a high opinion of your ability to write NPOV, "for the enemy". KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm not exactly Richard Nixon. I try not to have enemies. It doesn't always work. Arch O. La ^{Grigrory Deepdelver} 20:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

KC is certainly not the only editor who feels that way. •Jim62sch• 01:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Archola, I had no idea when I asked you to look at this that it would end up being a morass of POV forks, including a child article from a pro wrestling article. I must say, you and company are handling it well. (My $.02 - three way merge to The New Church.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CKB and CW

Hi Archie, I am being passive at CKB! But I am going to get off my bed and do something on CKB...some day! (since it's holiday for me here I am going to sleep in...)

In your profile it says you are male and single. But I thought Archie is a female name... Can you tell me what Archie means? --inky 08:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Archie has always been a male name. "Archie" is a reduced form of the English name "Archibald," which means something like "nobly bold." Some famous Archies include Archie Andrews, Archie Bunker, Archibald Cox, Archie MacPherson. Archibald Primrose &c. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 10:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Archie,

Just wanted to let you know that CKB has now moved as per the discussion of changing servers. I am hosting it myself now on a really good server. I have more control over extensions and stuff. Incidentally, the name has changed to ChristWiki because CKB was so unweildy and long. ;)

We are just about ready to go live!

When I transferred everything over, it worked out pretty well. However, you will have to recreate your user. Your user/talk page should be intact. The reason is that for privacy issues I didn't copy the user table over because that would give me access to passwords (encrypted, mind you) and personal information stuff. Thus, the user table is blank and you need to recreate yourself :)

As soon as we finalize the CPOV policy, I think we're ready to "go public" with this project and invite the world! I'm pretty excited for that, and I wanted to thank you for your contributions thus far. We can submit to DMOZ and Google and start getting some real active hits on that site.

Please join up and re-register at the new domain: http://christ.relately.com/

Drop me a message on my talk page once you've done that so that I can +admin you.

-- nsandwich 04:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interested in Helping Start an Uncontroversial One?

I had an enquiry as to what a "lay theologian" is and am thinking of starting an article on it. Any thoughts as a source to use to back up what I might say there? --CTSWyneken 12:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I could write it and see if I get accused of "Original Reearch!" 8-) --CTSWyneken 13:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

Arch, would you be willing to keep an eye on "Christianity"? Several editors are trying to make the intro hedge on whether or not it's monotheism. —Aiden 06:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm one of those editors but my only motive is NPOV. Sophia 09:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm wading in (you'd think I'd have learned from Luther Wars and Jesus Wars!) I'm going to try the mediator trick and see if I can help everyone get passed the debate. My concern, as always, is accuracy. Of course, you know I can play ball with Sophia. 8-) --CTSWyneken 17:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I just went for a cleanup of my userspace. —Aiden 18:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thinking back on this, this whole discussion is a bit scary, I mean, it should be blatantly obvious to anyone who's learned even a tiny bit at least about Christianity to know that it is monotheistic, I don't think NPOV or whatever else it is was invented so that people have to bend facts to the occassion. Homestarmy 18:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just going by what Homestarmy had said about the site being down. I've lost the URL and don't care to find it. —Aiden 06:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity article

Dear Arch, I am sorry that I have not devoted more time to this matter. I will do so now. Thank you for contacting me. Very cordially, --Drboisclair 18:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian views of Jesus

Since you earlier were involved in some discussion on possibly merging this article, would you come to the Talk page and give some feedback to my suggestion that this article be redirected to Christology? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

After what you got me into last time, I want to do this why? ;-) --CTSWyneken 19:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages#Images_and_Appearance

Although not a policy, it seems to be common practice (and common courtesy) to use a signature name that is either identical or closely related to your account name, or to use your real name.

:)

—Aiden 22:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen quite a few variations on this (especially Ril "Victim of Signature Fascism"), but what the heck, I'll comply. I was just having fun with the Hobbit Name Generator that Monkeesage introduced me too. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Archola^Talk 22:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I see nothing in the link about "a signature name that is either identical or closely related to your account name, or to use your real name." It does say not to let your signature get too long... Grigory Deepdelver AKA Archola^Talk 22:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking mine was too long - what do you think of the new attempt? Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I like, I'll have to do something similar with my sig when I get a chance. Care to look over True christianity? The murderous dog told me that this article has issues. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Archola^Talk 23:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

....True Christianity? For a second, I thought it was time for some major edit warring rofl. Homestarmy 23:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just for laughs

I don't know if you've come across this great editor with a fine sense of humour but check out his user page User:Coldbourne - the magazine article quoted there really made me laugh. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 08:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of truth to that article ;) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Archola^Talk 08:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars and other awards

As I just watched you archiving the pages again I realised no one had thanked you for all the hard work you have been doing recently - especially with all the external problems we've been having so.....

		The Original Barnstar
		For being a wonderful Wikipedian! Sophia Gilraen of Dorthonion 15:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW you're my first barnstar! Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 15:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that sentiment and award you:

Actually both of you are upstanding Wikipedians---Sophia and Archola. I think someone should soon nominate both of you to be admins. We need more quality admins--esp. ones that have a history of proving themselves genuinely fair, friendly, principaled,and against cabal-like behaviors.Giovanni33 10:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Gio - however I'm still too new and there are project pages an admin needs to know about that I'm still discovering day by day! Archie however would be grand - if he wanted to go for it I would be happy to propose him. Do you need the stress Archie or are you happy being a mere hobbit editor like the rest of us? Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 13:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't really right now. People objected to CTSWyneken's RfA in part because his edits/article ratio was around 9. Mine was 10.69 when the tool stopped being updated...probably because of all the time I spend around Jesus. (Not a bad thing for a Christian like myself, but still "a narrow focus.") I need to diversify first. I'm very flattered, but at the moment, I'm not worthy.Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 13:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, both of you should maybe wait but think about it. I'd love to see excellent admins who I know I can trust to be fair and impartial despite POV differences. My edit/article ration is also hight, about 9, as well, which AnnH says suggests that I'm here to push a POV, in her many posts about me. I think we have high ratios is only because we want to stick to a few articles at a time in order to devout enough time to be able to solve the major issues with the articles we are working with first, before moving on to others. I think this is normal. I like to finish a job and not leave it unfinished before I move on to other articles--or too many others. Therefore, it seems to be a matter of persistence and dedication to an article istelf, which is not a matter of POV pushing; POV pushign is about content, not subject. The hight ration indicates conentration of articles, not content or any particular POV, just interests in the subjects.Giovanni33 00:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but not everyone sees it that way. Also, there are probably still some policies I need to leatn. I've barely moved beyond the main and user spaces. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Say, how do you check edit/article ratios anyway? Homestarmy 03:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the pretty stars are nice, but I collect waterfowl. 8-) Our campus is home to literally hundreds of Canada Geese, Mallard Ducks and almost a dozen white swans. I once joked we should have a charity here... feed the poor... on Geese. My wife gave me a gag stuffed goose. I loved it so much I have a collection of stuffed, glass, wooden, you name it, waterfowl of all species in my office. BOb--CTSWyneken 21:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I hereby award the Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar to Archola for keeping his cool, working towards consensus and other similar feats of civility on hotly contested pages such as Jesus and Christianity --CTSWyneken 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, good grief! Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile

To quote Cowboy Troy, "Somebody's Smiling on Me." When I want to smile, I usually go ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hope you passedd it on. Just to let you know I've had to simplify my signature as I took a roasting over it being too long. Sophia 10:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I shortened my sig a bit, I optimized the code and used some redirects (check my sig for the code). Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and CTSWyneken and I just smiled at each other. He left his smile at me on the TCF page, so technically I guess one could say that he smiled at you and Jim62sch as well. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avery? Who knows?

Thanks for remembering me while I'm off the Jesus radar. How goes it, BTW? Did you catch I had a failed RfA? (I can't remember if you were by) Anyway, check my edit counts. I've been a busy beaver in a lot of places. BTW, what do you know of French Canadian explorers? 8-) --CTSWyneken 01:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lutherans and Christians and Jew! Oh, My!

Mostly, I think, such a charge means someone isn't getting their way.

Well, if you want to beef up for a RfA, drop by Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#When to cite It's a civil discussion and in Project Namespace! Also, welome committee work and RC Patroling can help the edit ratio. 8-) --CTSWyneken 10:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking dial-up Earthlink and/or Qwest Communications

Re: The below:

---

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Sasquatch for the following reason (see our blocking policy): vandalism on REALbasic, legal threats, etc. if there is collateral damage, please email me Your IP address is 67.0.66.233.Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.

---

I'm not sure who Sasquatch is talking about, but this is not me. The domain name for 67.0.66.233 is 0-2pool66-233.nas4.des-moines1.ia.us.da.qwest.net. Qwest Communications is my local phone company, and I'm on a dial-up Earthlink connection. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC) PS: I've been online with this IP about 43 minutes. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 14:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: As per Talk:REALbasic#New Range Blocks, I appear to be caught in a range block. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, the range block has been lifted. Apparently there's been a nasty dispute going on there. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned Threats

The guy is a newbie that doesn't like that I reverted his addition of a link to porn pictures supposedly of a Russian female tennis star. --CTSWyneken 15:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please give your voice in this matter

Dear Arch,

Please look at this and consider voting: [2]--Drboisclair 00:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting times

• Both
• What those in power don't like
• All three?

I've been editing the "year" articles lately, from 1 to 386 so far, trying to get control of the friggin' loonies on the Juan Cole page, getting ready for my next FA to debut next Wednesday (Nostradamus) and just assorted other nonsense. Oh, I have a blog now, I'll send you the address in e-mail -- I don't blog everyday, just when the mood strikes!

I also ran into an editor who is fluent in French and Spanish, so I get to practice both, which is nice. And I met (virtually) a guy from Brasil, so I'm helping him with his English, and he's helping me get my Portuguese up to the level of my French and Spanish. And I'm reading Ferdinand de Saussures textbook on linguistics, with cosmology up next. Wow, I sound like a flippin' geek!  ;) •Jim62sch• 21:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help on Mathematics

Posted by Pruneau 21:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team

I hear it's a minefield ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus subpage

Just to remind people, I have a subpage for comments on the various Jesus articles. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver}