User talk:ApostleJoe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, ApostleJoe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Re: Encouragement

Thanks Joe - I appreciate it. I don't typically regard philosophical disputes as occasions for proseletyzing due to their combative and argumentative tone, but I'm not letting people get away with portraying Christianity incorrectly. Take care and God bless, --Signaj90 (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia fauna

Welcome again, Dear ApostleJoe. Sorry that I had had no idea about Wikipedia fauna before you asked me this question. It seems to me that you can simply join in more than one fauna. And I think that it's OK for you to create a new fauna. You may also raise the question at Wikipedia:Help desk, or leave your question at your user talk page and add a {{helpme}} there. Some experts may come to help you. Best regards. --Neo-Jay (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome! Please feel fee to let me know if you need any help in the future. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question for Someone

{{helpme}}

I've looked through all of the Wikipedia Fauna over and over again, and I don't really seem to fit into any of the categories. The way my personality is, sometimes I'm going to be a Dragon, then other times I'm a Gnome, other times an Elf, and perhaps even a Fairy.

I was wondering if perhaps (with much consideration, naturally) a new fauna could be added, one that describes itself as "maintaining many of the qualities of the Wikipedia fauna at once, or regularly fluctuating between the different qualities" (I was thinking Griffin simply because it embodies different animals, thus showing different kinds of fauna combined).

If I am not mistaken, in a nutshell: Dragons are bold and make large contributions, Fairies make things nicer to look at, Elfs make new articles and work behind the scenes, Slothes make contributions because they enjoy it, and Gnomes work behind the scenes on grammar and spelling, etc.

Once again, my reason for proposing this is simply because I know that I will almost constantly change fauna qualities, and I doubt I am the only one.

If this is not necessary because of an existing solution, please point this out to me (I am new and while I've looked around the articles, I may have missed something), and I'll quiet down. (ApostleJoe (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC))


  • Wikipedia Fauna is just a metaphor for illustrating broad categories of editors. In the grand scheme of things, what is much more important is volunteering your time and knowledge to the project through good-faith contributions, and contributing in ways you see fit. You don't have to conform to one of the fauna if you don't feel you fit into any, or fit several, just be yourself, be bold and ignore all rules! Happy editing! Mr Senseless (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, alright, then it isn't necessary to create a new fauna. Thank you for answering my question! (ApostleJoe (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Inappropriate capitalisation

The word 'god' is only capitalised when it is a proper noun, as in 'Christians profess belief in God'. Common-noun 'god', as in "Christians profess belief in one god", is not capitalised. Equally, pronouns referencing God are not capitalised. In "over the ages, God and his name were forgotten", 'his' should not have a capital. Please follow Wikipedia's orthographic standards. Ilkali (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I was unsure about a few places, however in such instances as "the God of Israel" the "g" should be capitalized, as that is a title of the God of the Jews. (ApostleJoe (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC))

'God' is not a title. Ilkali (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, it is. God can be a name and an adjective. In the case of "God of Israel," it is a name (the equivelant of a title). In the case of "the gods" it is not. (ApostleJoe (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

A name and a title are not the same thing. They are not equivalent. A name is a proper noun, and a title (of the type you're talking about) is a common noun. Most common nouns are not titles (consider something like "Lex Luthor is Superman's archenemy" - why isn't 'archenemy' a title?). There is nothing obviously forbidding 'god' being used as a title, but Wikipedia gives no indication that it should be. It is not listed in Title, nor in WP:MoS#Titles, nor in MOS:CAPS#Titles. What evidence do you have in support? Ilkali (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"President Nixon." Capitalized. "The presidents." Not capitalized. The same rule doesn't carry over? (ApostleJoe (talk) 23:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC))

'President' is a title. Not all common nouns are titles. Ilkali (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No, but in the case of "Christian God" it isn't being used as a common noun. I'm not trying to argue needlessly, in fact I'm not even saying this out of a Christian respect for my God, I'm doing it to make sure its used correctly. Why is "President of the United States" a title, but "God of Israel" not? It doesn't make sense to me. (ApostleJoe (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

"No, but in the case of "Christian God" it isn't being used as a common noun". In the case of 'god of Israel', it is certainly a common noun. Other cases can be examined separately.
Why is "President of the United States" a title, but "God of Israel" not? Why is 'archenemy' not a title? Why not 'mother' or 'employer' or 'plumber' or 'husband'? Ilkali (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point, we're not debating whether every title is capitalized, just whether "God of Israel" should be. "God of Israel" is referring to a specific God, and thus should be capitalized. The same rule should be applied for any religion who's god goes by the name of God. The "President of the United States" is the President of the United States, and the "God of Israel" is the God of Israel. In referring to the Christian God, one of His names is "the God of Israel," and in respect to this it should be capitalized.

Just because a kangaroo is called a joey doesn't mean you don't capitalize the name "Joey." Just because someone calls something or someone a god, does not mean you shouldn't capitalize the name "God." (ApostleJoe (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC))

"we're not debating whether every title is capitalized" - I didn't say anything about capitalisation in my last comment. My point was that not every common noun is a title.
""God of Israel" is referring to a specific God, and thus should be capitalized" - 'father of Joe' talks about a specific father, but 'father' is not capitalised. Why not?
Are you saying that 'God' in this case is a name or title? They're not the same thing. Ilkali (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell you why "father of Joe" isn't capitalized, but I can tell you why "God of Israel" is: it's one of those titles like "President of the United States." It's a respect thing in the Christian (and Jewish, and Muslim, etc.) religion, and on top of that it's one of the ways, in the Bible (both OT and NT), that God reveals Himself.(Exodus 5:1/24:10, Matthew 15:31).

When I address my Father through written correspondence, I capitalize it because I'm using the word "father" as a name. "Dear Father/Dad/Pop. . ." That is my father's name (the title that I give him). In the case of "God of Israel," the same rule should apply, should it not? (ApostleJoe (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC))

"I can't tell you why "father of Joe" isn't capitalized" - Well, I can tell you: it's because 'father' isn't a title. Only a subset of common nouns behave that way, and 'god' isn't among them.
"It's a respect thing in the Christian (and Jewish, and Muslim, etc.) religion" - So is capitalising pronouns, but Wikipedia doesn't follow that convention either. Ilkali (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, my bad. (ApostleJoe (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC))


[edit] Christianity as originally a Jewish sect

AFAIK, all scholars who are operating from a basis other than "faith" (and I don't mean anything at all insulting there) regard Christianity as having originated as a Jewish sect.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22jewish+sect%22+christianity

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but what I'm saying is that Christianity never met the requirements to be included in Judaism. Ever. It was regarded as heresy. (ApJ (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC))


I don't believe that that is true. Judaism around the time of Jesus had quite a few sects or sub-groups or opinions (just as Christianity has today) -- Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Johannines, Hillelites, Shammaites, Hellenicized Jews, Pro-Roman Jews, Anti-Roman Jews (Sicarii and Zelotes), etc, etc.
Some Jews certainly regarded the teachings of Jesus as a heresy, but others didn't. Members of all of these groups regarded some others as heretics. (It would be similar to saying today, "Who is patriotic?" -- there's a lot of debate about that.)
I have studied these matters some, and as far as I know Jesus regarded himself as a good Jew throughout his life, and most of his followers were originally Jews and considered themselves to be Jews throughout his life (though some few of his followers were Romans, Greeks, etc.). It was not until somewhat after Jesus' death (coinciding with the teachings of Paul) that Christians started to consider themselves as separate from Jews.
As you see in Sadducee -- "The Hebrew name, Tsdoki, indicates their claim that they are the followers of the teachings of the High Priest Tsadok, often spelled Zadok" -- a group might call itself "Johannines", "Tsadokites", etc, but this was understood to mean "Jews, following the ideas of Teacher X".
The label "Christian" probably meant to most people of the first century A.D.: "Jew, following the ideas of the teacher Jesus of Nazareth", and only gradually came to mean "Follower of the teacher Jesus of Nazareth, as distinguished from 'Jew' ."
-- If you haven't studied the history of the years just before and after Jesus, you might want to - it's really extremely interesting. Have a good one.  :-) -- Writtenonsand (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Box

{{helpme}}

Vincent Dantona
Born December 31, 1950 (1950-12-31) (age 57)
Medium Stand-up comedy
Years active 1970–present
Genres Ventriloquist
Website vinceandgeorge.com
American Comedy Awards
$10,000 winner on America's Funniest People

Can someone please fix this for me? I'm working on a page and I can't get the box to work. (ApJ (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

What specifically isn't working about it? Aside from no closing }}, of course. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 06:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't actually get it to be a box... I don't know how. Heh... (ApJ (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

There you go. As the writer above said, you missed the double curly brackets at the end. You also need to use a standard infobox layout following one of the templates in Category:People infobox templates. I used Template:Infobox Comedian. I made up the dates, so you'll have to change them, of course. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know what they meant... xD

Thank you so much. I appreciate it a lot! (ApJ (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! See you around! NiGHTS into Dreams... (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to it! :) (ApJ (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Article talk pages

Hi Joe, I saw your comments at Talk:Christian. There's usually not much point adding to old conversations. Wikipedia is not like a blog or chat site where people are trying to persuade each other; talk pages are just for discussing how to improve the articles. In that case, the article has already been re-started from scratch since those old comments were left. Hope this saves you typing stuff that no-one will read! - Fayenatic (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh... oh dear. Well, I don't think I even took a look at the dates. Hm... well, at least I got to hear myself talk, eh? xD

Thanks for the tip. :) (ApJ (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC))

I just archived all the old talk on that article; that should help. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Christian has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Waggers (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Um... I removed personal research that had no references whatsoever. My revert was perfectly warranted, wouldn't you agree? (ApJ (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC))

Definitely agree. And thanks for the star! Only my second, as it happens. Much appreciated, anyway. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to The Colbert Report, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Thank you. Please do not include this information without references Noetic Sage 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of removing accurate information, why not just add a citation needed notice to it? (ApJ (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
See your own response to the comment above. A citation needed notice would suffice, but the article is already bogged down with superfluous information. Once a citation is found it shouldn't be a problem to add it back in. —Noetic Sage 06:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That was different, however... I didn't inject POV into it, and while I didn't provide a reference, I provided accurate information (unlike the situation above). But, alas, I suppose I must go find sources. xD (ApJ (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC))


[edit] CF Sold?

I didn't know CF was sold. And who is Lee? inigmatus (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted him an email using my user account "Melchizedek." It's in God's hands now. Thanks again ApostleJoe. inigmatus (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I also sent him a PM. I think it would be nice just to have the "Josephus" account active again. When I login, I just get a blank page so I can't even appeal using that account. inigmatus (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If given opportunity, and God so desired it, I would be me more than happy to participate in the continuing vision of Christian Forums. inigmatus (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't responded. I tried IMing him on Yahoo! and on the CF board, and emailed him. There has been no response yet. It's possible he may be too busy. inigmatus (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't surprise me... but I doubt he'll ignore you. Keep trying him on IM, though. (ApJ (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Reagan talk page posts

Could I trouble you to use indents in your posts, so as to follow the flow of other editorial comments? Use of the colon (:) makes it easier to do so. If, looking at the edit page prior to making your comments, you notice that the comment you wish to address begins with the three colons, you begin your post using four colons, to distinguish your post from theirs. At each new paragraph within that post, you would use the same number of colons to group your post together. I hope that helps explains matters better. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. Sorry for the inconvenience, I'm pretty new at this. xD (ApJ (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

As I just posted in the article discussion, I guessed as much. You do write well, though - so that covers a host of sins. I only pointed it out because - like using wiki definitions to make wiki arguments - it tends to weaken your posts. If you run into problems or have questions, just drop me a message and ask. We may not agree on everything (I started Hap out the same way), but i am always here to help. We are all in this together. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, could you please explain to me why Wikipedia's definitions of things aren't good for references on Wikipedia? That doesn't make any sense to me... (ApJ (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Sure. After reading this post, take a look at a couple of guideline pages, like WP:RS, WP:V and WP:LEAD. Excellent rules/guideline pages, but you will note that not that much in the way of references exist. It's because most of these pages were built by consensus on how an article should be put together. it doesn't refer to something outside the article. Because it doesn't, it is the collected and agreed-to rules that editors choose to agree with. Because if this consensual nature, it isn't usable as precedent for an article that discusses wiki protocols. It's like defining a term by using the term itself: 'an orange is orange-colored' isn't very helpful. Granted, that's an over-simplification, but I am hoping you grasp my point.
The big difference between that and regular articles is that the latter discusses subjects outside of Wikipedia - like Harold Washington or 300 or vanilla. Because they deal with subjects outside the usability of Wikpedia, they need external citation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit to Christian

My edit was added to a paragraph about a usage of Christian, i.e. "the Christian thing to do" or 'that's mighty Christian of you" as a synonym for good or moral. If mentioning the usage is "constructive' to the article, then the notation of the usage's offensiveness is also. --Editor2020 (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My edit was not a "Criticism of Christianity", so why would I put it there? It has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. It has to do with a particular usage of a term that is mentioned in the "Christian" article, and that the usage mentioned in the previous line was considered offensive by non-Christians.
It would be equivalent to putting the usage "Jew someone down" in "Jew" and not explaining that it is offensive to Jews.

--Editor2020 (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Quoting "Articles on a subject (religious ones especially) are not places to add things that offend "some people".

Well of course they are. And don't misquote me, I didn't say "some people". I said non-Christians.

Quoting: "Everything offends somebody. Should we add every offense in existence, to every article they apply to? Certainly not.

I'm wondering why you are having this strong reaction to what is really a very minor point. Would you be upset if I had made the same edit to a Muslim page that included an equivalent usage offensive to Christians? Because I would have made it.

Quote: "Christian is not the place for that comment because of this, and because it is uncited, unreferenced, personal research/opinion."

Now there you've got a point! But that not what you said when you removed it. You said it was not "constructive". Point made! Until I find a reference, I withdraw my edit.

--Editor2020 (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Centering

{{helpme}}

Hey, uh, how do I center stuff on a page? Text, specifically? (ApJ (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

<center>Text to be centered</center>, which would produce this:
Text to be centered


Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 15:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! (ApJ (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Dilemma with a conceited user

I have a dilemma with Beemer69, a conceited deletionist user who has not watched any of my favorite TV shows to gather facts from them. Angie Y. (talk)

I'm not so sure how I could help, but there's really no need for name-calling. Is there some way I can help diffuse the situation? (ApJ (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC))