User talk:81.156.177.21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an encyclopedia. All relevant information is to be included, rather than cut because it doesn't suit someone's political or religious bias or bigotry....Well said Anon. I totally agree with you - Melissa

Of course, it would be nice to know what these political or religious bias or bigotry is suppose to be. -Acjelen 13:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It is irrelevant. They should not prevail in wikipedia.

I would also ask that you stop insulting my intelligence and/or character. -Acjelen 21:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

That requires you have one.

P.s. You do know you can use ===Summary=== to create lesser titles?

Listing the canon of Eusebius in an article about M or Matthew or the Gospel of the Hebrews is entirely inappropriate. It has very little to do with the article. It may be valid to put it into an article about canon, like Biblical Canon, but not about Matthew etc, because it is very little connected to it, or the M source. I could just as easily list "ancient books which the church of england thinks are quite good reading for monday afternoons".
All the content you have is about Eusebius' canon, and totally unrelated to M or Matthew, or Hebrews, except that these are 1 of the items in the list. For example, I could quote from one of the works of Preisner (classical music composer) and list all the texts he thought appropriate, and shove the list, and comments about how music developed, into Revelation or Dies Irae. But that would be totally inappropriate behaviour, as is adding Eusebius' list to M-source, or Gospel of the Hebrews.

You have some good points but I have difficulty not knowing who you are?

Apart from you using the name "Melissa", whether or not it is your real name. I have no idea who you are either, a situation, which if you actually think about it seriously, is liable to be permanent.


Every good wish and blessing,

Melissa

The blessing of whom?

Good point! - --Melissa










Could you explain why you added Category:CSB Articles to the talk pages of articles you did? This activity was reported on the vandalism in progress page as being odd. Thank you. Lachatdelarue (talk) 22:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are listed in CSB - open tasks.

Ok, thanks. I guess I should have looked there first. I'll remove the listing from ViP. Lachatdelarue (talk) 12:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No problem.

Contents

[edit] Speedy deletion of images

That you disagree with the contents of Image:Evolutionist view of science.JPG isn't grounds for speedy deletion. Given that the (admittedly pretty pointless) image isn't used on any Wikipedia page, there's not much of a problem I'd have thought. If you really want it deleted, though, you can take if to VfD. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Foundation (religious text)

A few worries about this:

  1. Is it Foundation or The Foundation?
  2. Who considers it to be part of the Christian apocyrypha?
  3. I can't find any reference to the book; there's a Manichæan book called Foundation, but I know of no-one who regards that as part of the Christian apocrypha.

It's not that I'm saying that you've got it all wrong, but you need to give citations and more information. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:34, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm working my way through the apocrypha, ill get to it in a moment.

Um, it's been more than five hours. Do you think that you could get to it now? My second two questions are the ones that urgently need answers. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm on the Judao-Christian gospels at the moment. The apocrypha is really quite big you know. Anyway, question 2 - Listed amongst the apocrypha by the Gelasian Decree, the 6th century list of what was definitively canon and what was heretical - the exact quote is Book which is called The Foundation - apocryphal. This was an official Roman Catholic church decree, and as such, in the 6th century, applied to the whole of western christianity. I.e. it has been part of the apocrypha since at least the 6th century, which is pretty definite. The same goes for the book called "The Treasure". Question 3 - see the answer to question 2.

  1. Always 'sign' your messages with four tildes (~~~~).
  2. It was actually the Gelasian decree that I was thinking of when I said that it was considered to be Manichæan.
  3. As you're doing a lot of editing here:

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires you to provide no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

  • The use of a username of your choice
  • The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
  • Your own user page
  • Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
  • The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
  • The ability to rename pages
  • The ability to upload images
  • The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
  • The eligibility to become an administrator
  • The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Its a bank holiday, I won't be doing much editing after I go back to work. Im just bored at the moment, thats extremely unlikely to continue as I have stuff to do later this week, like relocate to baden-baden (in germany).

[edit] Red links

Unless there's some chance that the article will be created, a profusion of red links just makes the article look messy and unfinished. On the evidence of the article for The Foundation, which contained nothing more than was in New Testament apocrypha, and so which is now a redirect (making your link into a loop), the chances for most of them are slim. If people want to create articles, they need only make the link and go from there. You also changed some of the link from my correction; your versions didn't point to the Wikipedia articles, but had to go through redirects, while mine connected directly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It's sad that, instead of having the courtesy to reply to me, you merely reverted the changes with nothing but an edit summary. As you've reverted my corrections to the links, which made them direct instead of going through redirects, I've reverted to my original version; if you want to make further corrections, please have the good manners to leave such corrections in place, and don't lecture other editors on Wikiquette while offending against it yourself. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beloved Disciple

I'd like to keep the Disciple whom Jesus loved article focused on the figure from the Gospel of John and keep speculation of identity from noncanonical texts limited. I also wanted to point out that one can hardly know which John King James meant in his rationalization, so using it as evidence for John the Evangelist is hardly apt. Also, it is the Beloved Disciple and Mary Magdalene who are together in Chapter 20 of John, but they aren't dating: they are present at the same time and same place. Anyway, Simon Peter is there as well to chaperon if that might have been necessary. Finally, I'm sure one encountered half naked youths frequently in 1st century Palestine (and hardly a pair of pants to be found). I think we can discuss Jesus' physical relationships without sexing it up. -Acjelen 23:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

What you want to focus it on is irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia. It is deigned to include all relevant information on a topic, whether it suits your theology or not.
P.s. the thing about the semi-naked youth is that he is explicitely identified as being semi-naked, as if there is a significance to this.

Obviously I took the wrong tack in my message above as you seemed to have just reverted my changes. I will address my problems with your additions to the Beloved Disciple one at a time, in the article's talk page. -Acjelen 02:49, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Next time wear a carnation, you hear? Grace Note 03:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Melissadolbeer has opened a request for arbitration against you (at WP:RFAR). ~~~~ 09:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

You have been named as one of the alledged "group" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ril Group-New Violation-Authentic Matthew --Ron. 14:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)