User talk:C.Logan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

1st Archive

Contents 1 Criticism of Christianity 2 bible passages 3 Request 4 c logan 5 Trinity 6 dan 7 cs lewis 8 Quote 9 Thanks 10 Good work at Criticism of Christianity 11 SV 12 Ahem... 13 Request for mediation not accepted 14 Logan, this will help you 15 Re: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Criticism of Christianity. 16 Thank you 17 Trinity 18 Merry Christmas 19 Merry Christmas 20 Discussion moved 21 Arrow performing vandalization 22 Thanks 23 Islam 24 For no particular reason 25 Warnings. 26 Is Najjar a reliable reference? 27 Buddhism and Wicca compared to Islam 28 Depictions of Muhammad 29 Talk:Muhammad#NOTICE_about_image_discussion 30 Comments on Mohammed Talk 31 Mohammed:Talk - Anon users 32 Message 33 ? images 34 Hi, check you email 35 Orthodox Christianity and alcohol

[edit] Criticism of Christianity

There appears to be an edit war brewing at Criticism of Christianity, so I'm writing to ask you kindly to consider bringing up your concerns with the bold edits on the talk page. Even anonymous editors deserve our good faith, and if they are new to wikipedia, the deserve kindness and an explanation of wikipedia policies and guidelines. In order not to bite newcomers, explaining why you reverted a bold edit in detail could help the anon understand how wikipedia works, and start them off on a path of becoming a productive editor.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bible passages

I just put up a bunch of bible passages since your interested in christianity objectively. They're all sourced. They're all pretty damn funny too. Also, a guy named Bishop Iraneus in 180 AD off the coast of Franch was the first person to lead a movement to limit the number of gospels to Four. These are mathew mark, luke, and john. There were a number of agnostic texts still out there. Do you know Iraneus' reasoning? This is actually true.... "There are four corners to the universe, and their are four principle winds.. therefore there can only be four gospels that are authentic".. pretty neat stuff if u look into it. Biblical1 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello; yes, I'm aware of Irenaeus. The problem is that you're reading the whole thing with your conclusion set as it is; therefore, I've read many usual things and consider them reasonably, while you read things with the set conclusion of Christianity being a silly, disastrous belief system. The fact of the matter is that I've read all there is to read on the subject; the most embarrassing or shameful acts of history as well. There's nothing new in what you're telling me, and I feel like you've ignored my comment above entirely. I do learn about Christianity objectively, so you're offending me with your suggestion. Please stop posting here.--C.Logan 21:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Would you please tell me what you call here somebody who uses another user name. Just forgot the term.Muscovite99 18:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet? Although someone can user another user name within the rules, abuse of the privelege, or connection to vandalism will usually make the act much worse.--C.Logan 21:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!Muscovite99 18:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] c logan

I told you a moderator was warned about your alterations.

No one would sincerly believe the material posted after the martin luther quotes, only someone who didnt know which sources to truswt and who accepted things based on authority easily. The material before it is evidence that is overwhelmingly convincing. I can only offer you more books to read in the hopes that a) not that you give up christianity but b) you learn what about christianity is true and what isn't. The fact that the inquisiton is a "caricature" which you insist on being in the article, which is IN the article, is not true. It's not even close. But it's sourced, so I and others didn't erase it. The benefit of knowledge is not so that you can leave your religious beliefs, etc. (I am christian), it's so you can know whether or not ideas passed by others are true who claim to be good sources (ie the historians of science who claim there is no conflict between church and science. Even a christian knows thats not true and they are ignoring evidence. Why, we dont know as christians, but they are making it uip nonetheless). As for thej bible passages, those are true, unfortunately for both of us. That doesn't mean that our beliefs are wrong or that we should edit them and contend its not original research. Nor is it true that exegetical material should not be posted (exegesis means altering, its the process of a scribe rewriting a material so I dont know why you used this word).

68.58.71.152 02:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, an exegesis is an interpretation of text. Please get that straight. Secondly, do not refer me to any books, because I consider your suggestions to be unwelcome, as it amounts to "read this until you agree with me". I don't, but that isn't even relevant to the reversions that I have brought against the inappropriate information. I'm unsure if you realize this, but your entire post makes it quite clear that you have no interest of adhering to WP:NPOV.

You are deleting material because you find it to be unconvincing. Needless to say, that is your subjective judgment in the matter, and is not a valid determining factor concerning "what goes into Wikipedia". You have spent the greater part of your comment pointing out why the other side is incorrect, and yet I am accused of removing information "because I don't like it". Have you bothered to read the policies I continue to cite? Additionally, you again ignore WP:OR in your treatment of the Bible verses. Make no mistake: many people disagree with your POV. That in itself is an important consideration to note. Even if the Bible "contradictions" were included with proper sources, WP:NPOV would require that there at least be a general treatment of the verses in question by an opposing viewpoint (i.e. one that argues for no contradiction). This is how things work.

As a last note, it is a certain violation of WP:OR that one includes quotes from primary sources with personal judgments as to their meanings. This makes the editor him/herself a factor in the information, because it is by his judgment alone that they "contradict", and again, their "meaning" in general is not up for editors themselves to decide. Only reliable secondary/tertiary sources can be used in this manner, because in that instance the judgment is notable, and most probably reliable (or at least verifiable), as it has essentially been peer-reviewed.--C.Logan 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed everything and sent you an email about it, i have also filled a report against the anon user on WP:AN/3RR. Tiptoety 06:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also written you a reply, and I took a look at the report. To note, User:Biblical1 had edited my page in tandem with User:74.128.175.136 (beginning and completing the same comment, above), so this may be worth noting in the report, as it may be in use again in the near future.--C.Logan 06:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the page has also been protected for 12 hours so that everyone can cool off. Tiptoety 06:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The page has been un-blocked, but please remember to tred lightly and discuss issues that arise on the articles talk page. If you have any other requests of me, please let me know. Tiptoety 19:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity

Thanks -- I've been concerned with the additions to the Trinity section, but my schedule hasn't allowed me to do anything about it. Tim 03:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dan

Dan. I've been away from the page for something like 2 weeks due to classes. Im a neuroscience and philosophy double major at Indiana University. I don't have time to deal with alterations to the criticism page, nor reflect over why content was deleted when its most obvious it was because someone disagreed with my views. As it stands, the page is left the way you wanted it. I deleted the first paragraph in the science section, but that was only to get the ball rolling so someone like you, and preferably not me, could summarize the point of view from the Christian stand point. I would prefer to write from the other view point (the view point stating there is a conflict), but as is, there's basically 4-5 paragraphs from a few Christian thelogians debunking the martin Luther quote and then some guys summarizes the conflicts as being a "caricature". I personally feel that the section of the page stands to be a good presentation of views in favor of non-conflict But... if I had my way, I would reput up several pictures where there have been problems with science related figures and the church in its evolution. I'm only concerned with what's true, but I could be a jerk and litter the page with this information and delete all of the view points that go against this.. but I don't. I ask that you try to summarize Ted Peters and the other theoligians viewpoints in 2 paragraphs and I will write a 2 paragraph thing as well... The paragraph that was initially there was taken from Stephen Hawkin's a Brief History of Time. Also I would like to comment on the original research from ted peters and the others .... its really some christian guy writing a book, finding a publisher, and then presenting his views. Any sect of any religious can do that and have their views printed. The only problem is we don't know if the information is true, nor objective.... no offense, but the guy is a theologian.... You mentioned something like "scholarly reviewed work"but those sources are not scholarly. (The Encyclopedia of religion is no different from me and you going on there and typing our own denominational views) Anyway, I ask for your help because I would prefer not to piss you or the others off, but I will try to include all of your viewpoints and responses and maintain sources also, i dont know if its you or someone else, but someone keeps putting christian books under the further reading section. Im not priivy to the rules, but thats like having a further reading section under Abraham Lincoln and then someone putting books there about John Wilkes Booth - there completely different view points. On top of that the Christianity website has its section, and someone can insert further reading under there. I don't go there and type various books, etc.--(Biblical) 68.58.71.152 (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to note that your somewhat ad hominem viewpoint concerning Ted Peters and the others is not really useful. Everyone has a bias, and therefore we can't discredit sources because of that. Richard Dawkins certainly has both feet in a particular standpoint, but his views are still worth citing. To use your example, anyone with an agenda can pander to a particular theory and find a publisher who will put it out. You may want to accept the fact that this rings as true as a possibility for sources which support your viewpoint as do sources which support my "viewpoint" (although that's not really a summarization of my views).

I don't know about the proposed 2-2 paragraph thing. I think everyone should be free to add information, as long as it is appropriately sourced and adheres to the NPOV tone. Just remember that you're adding a viewpoint- you can see it as truthful outside of Wikipedia, but it's only one possibility here, and therefore you should use a neutral presentation of views.

Concerning the books, I never added them, but I do revert to the version which includes them. I think that they're appropriate, because the section is not for "non-Christian" books, but for books dealing with the topic of criticism of Christianity. These books do indeed deal with the topic, as they address common criticisms and the history of Christianity in general. NPOV still applies for further reading, perhaps more so because of the suggestive nature of the section: "for more information, go out and read only the books of one particular side of the discussion".--C.Logan (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cs lewis

I dont know if you read him, but one of the recommended books posted was his. I'm not sure your views on him, but I once went on his website and wrote a criticism section.... all was fine and well until I made 2 huge block quotes from Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein. Freud's quote basically sumised that people who believed "x religious view" had - "an intimidation of the intelligence" - and Albert basically called anyone who believes in the afterlife an "egoistic and feeble soul". Needless to say, the content was deleted quick. And I worked hard to get it back on there..... anyone who typed "cs lewis" on google and went to his page would see his layout.... then scroll down and have Albert Einstein telling CS Lewis' praisers that they was egoistic and feeble to follow jesus for hope of reward after death... and then freud basically called them stupid. I just thought it was funny that I did that... but I'm only trying to show that whether or not what I present is true... ( in terms of the quotes, they were all accurate and the view points deserved to be there and were within wikipedia polcy) .. anything can and will be erased. Einstein's theory of general relativity was rejected for being too jewish by the germans and he was ripped by many people just because of his heritage, one american senator even denounced him for no good reason. It's unfortunate that the majority have control over what's printed and exposed to the public.... and wikipedia is no different. Thats a problem because that means people aren't always given the truth... and its only the brave few who go after it... and then they reject the majority forever after.... sorry im ranting, im done (biblical1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.71.152 (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the ranting, but I think the problem may be that you don't understand the reasoning behind the removal of your material. I've tried to make the issue clear on Criticism of Christianity and whatever other pages I may have spoken with you, but you still assume it's all a collective "hushing". Again, here, you use your additions to C.S.Lewis as an example, but checking the history to the version you endorse shows a painfully apparent amount of WP:OR (specifically, synthesis) and some general off-topic additions.

To explain the concept of synthesis in the context of Wikipedia and that particular edit, recall that Einstein's criticism of a religious thought is not the same as Einstein's criticizing C.S.Lewis. Basically, you presented several examples like this: Notable person X criticizes this behavior/idea, and Notable person Y exhibits this behavior/endorses this idea- therefore, Notable person X criticizes Notable person Y. This may work on your own time, but it is a clear example of a WP:SYN violation and is inappropriate for inclusion. The greater whole of the text is a hallmark of original research, with tangents concerning moral/religious ideas that have no relevance for inclusion on the biography page of C.S.Lewis. This isn't to say that some of the criticism (such as Pullman's) wasn't valid for inclusion; however, even that was much more appropriately placed at the Chronicles of Narnia page.

I'm very used to people misunderstanding why things are removed. Unfortunately, there are times when explanations of the rules go ignored in favor of the "you deleted it because you don't like it". Maybe I did like it, and maybe I didn't but, the rules are there for a reason, and my deletion of certain text is based in these rules rather than my personal preferences. Assume good faith concerning the motivations of other editors, and don't assume that everyone is trying to silence a particular viewpoint; more often than not, there is a valid reason for the removal of text or for the arrangement of things.

Also, let's just retread the fact that I disagree with the caricature (to use a familiar word) of Christian history that you endorse. I don't deny the negative aspects of religion's influence on world history, but I place it in perspective, and use a great deal of discernment concerning the information I take as weighty. Therefore, I don't need any convincing concerning the relation between science and religion; I know the goods and the bads and exaggerations and so on.--C.Logan (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

Here it is

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls - My lovely Albert, The World as I see it

-Biblical1 68.58.71.152 (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

How touching. It's a shame I disagree.--C.Logan (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey C.Logan,

Thanks very much for correcting my grammatical mistakes. --Aminz (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem.--C.Logan (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good work at Criticism of Christianity

Good work reverting blatant censorship at Criticism of Christianity. Thanks for the third or fourth time, for your diligent patroling of that page. Isn't it great that churches and Bible colleges teach Christians all sorts of criticisms of Christianity, including several that have some genuine substance, or lead to unresolvable issues. There's no need for Christians to censor the criticism page, if a genuinely decent criticism came up, it would make life somewhat simpler (but sadder). Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Very true. I'm sometimes irked by the misguided assumption that many people are Christians only because they haven't yet studied the issues and the history of the faith. In my case, the opposite was true. A Christian should feel no need to "censor" information on the page; however, there are valid instances in which additions can and should be removed. Many people are convinced that their own original research and/or faulty sources and assumptions are sufficient enough for text to be included, and they become defensive and suspicious when such text is removed according to policy. I try to keep things in line with policies and guidelines whenever I can. Thanks for the commendation.--C.Logan (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome.

As you describe, I've seen you talk things through with people. Sometimes restoring text, other times removing it, yet others flagging it. In all cases it is not only policy you defend, but the whole generalized principle of impartiality.

I entirely understand the awkwardness of being accused of Christian bias, but it is even more irritating when people become intolerant because they believe the only reasons people are Christian are because they are young, naive and coached by parents, or are stubborn, ignorant old folk who are out of touch with progress. The joy of middle age (or Wiki anonymity) is getting both!

It took me 30 years to learn how to listen. Some never learn. But, on the positive side, there are plenty of Wiki editors that are very skilled at handling disputes appropriately, even outside their own area of expertise ... possibly because they know they are! ;)

Got to get back to work on some other things. But watching you encourages me to stay patient. Cheers again. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's good to know that my efforts are identified by some. I appreciate it. Unfortunately for me, many of my own friends happen to make those faulty assumptions about the faith. I try to dispel those notions, but it doesn't exactly help when their shelf is dominated by books like Dawkins' The God Delusion. Yikes.--C.Logan (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SV

Hi C.Logan,

EoQ says: "Strong objections to the historicity of the satanic verses incident were, however, raised as early as the fourth/tenth century". That's why I added the term "vigorous" to specify the beginning of the phase of strong disapprovals. --Aminz (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That seems reasonable, but I think that "strong" may be a better term (if not only because the source itself uses it).--C.Logan (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

According to a past wiki-discussion, strong may mean that the objections were "strong". Vigorous however seems to be more neutral and does not carry any POV regarding the correctness of the objections. Please let me know what you think? Thanks --Aminz (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Very good point. Something sounds unusual about vigorous, however, but I suppose it would do (maybe I'll take a look at my thesaurus).--C.Logan (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ahem...

Did you mean to add this to a different article? :) -- Fullstop 20:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yeah. It was present in the text before it was removed by HolyMuslimWarrior here. I'd heard it before, so I re-added the statement with a sufficient citation. Why do you ask?--C.Logan 07:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the word "devil" and the word "satan" are etymologically distinct.

Thus, the statement "However, some maintain an etymological derivation from the Greek 'Diabolos'" would be appropriate in an article on Devil but inappropriate in Satan (which is where you added it).

Thats why I asked if you meant to add that to a different (Devil instead of to Satan) article. Do you know what I mean? -- Fullstop 15:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd figured that's what you meant. I re-added it because it's pertinent to the etymology of "Iblis". Considering that "Shaitan" has a clear relation to the word "Satan", one might wonder from where the other common term for Satan (in Islam) was derived. I'd heard of the "Diabolos" connection through the Syrian language, so I saw the removal by HolyMuslimWarrior (to note, a worrisome username when hoping for NPOV edits) as either a dismissal of the (previously) unsourced statement or as a directly POV removal. In any case, I think the information is worth mentioning (for the sake of NPOV), so I re-added it. Hopefully, you understand my reasoning now.--C.Logan 18:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether "iblis" is derived from "diabolos" or not is - as far as the *Satan* article is concerned - irrelevant. *Any* etymology of "iblis/devil/whatever" is irrelevant in an article on "satan/shaitan", just as - in reverse - an etymology of "satan/shaitan" would be misplaced over at Iblis. In this "diabolos" case, the Syriac possibility would perhaps (also) warrant a mention over at Devil, hence my supposition that you meant to add it to the Devil article instead of at Satan.

Yeah, the guy's username blares strong bias from the get-go, but that shoudn't lead us to automatically assume that every correction is bad in the long run. Even when his removal can be assumed to have been provoked by agenda, we can still allow that the removal was valid because it was off-topic to begin with.

-- Fullstop 19:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point here. I'd supposed that the presence of an etymology section was cause enough for a note on the term Iblis, but it does seem rather out of place once I read the whole thing over once or twice. I haven't checked my watchlist yet, but I suppose I'll remove it if it hasn't already been removed (although I could see the information fitting in if the phrasing were changed, but I'm not really concerned so much with the text's inclusion).

And indeed, not every instance of a strong username indicates biased editing, but unfortunately it is more often than not the case. At the time, however, I saw no real reason to remove the text; I do believe an edit summary can elucidate casual observers as to why certain changes were made, and can prevent disagreements. Unfortunately, many people neglect to use this simple, clarifying tool.--C.Logan 18:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Rianon Burnet 14:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)== Hi ==

On the JESUS discussion page, When you put reborn it's actually rose from the dead, flesh body and everything. That's ok, allot of people say that so it's not just you...... Have a wonderful day and God Bless....

Rianon Burnet 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

LotR appears to have a problem with "Life-death-rebirth gods", and I can understand on a personal level. His change to "Life-death-rebirth Deity" has no category article, as well it should not (why would you need a category for a singular concept?). I've changed Deity to "deities", which does lead to a category, and sounds a little better to me as well (although it's essentially the same thing...). I suppose it remains to be seen if LotR's issue is with the term "gods" specifically or with the plurality of the categorization (in which case there wouldn't appear to be a solution that would placate that user's distaste).--C.Logan 22:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that you didn't talke about the rebirth, I just wanted to tell you that's all..... I'm sorry if I offended you :( That was not my intent....

Rianon Burnet 12:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Cool, One question, when correcting or editing pages can I get my informations from a book and say so or does it have to be from the internet? I am unable to access other parts of the internet at work so I wouldn't be able too. Thank you so much and I hope that your day goes by smoothly... COOL

Have a wonderful day and God Bless......... Rianon Burnet 14:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Criticism of Christianity. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 02:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] Logan, this will help you

This was written by a Christian, I realize your first concern is not calling your faith into queston. So this book won't neccessarily.

The amount of objective information about Christianity in this is more than you could read in any disputable web-based religious encyclopedia. The author is the head of the Religious Studies department at University of Texas at Austin.

I'm also concerned about you. You're only 21, but I realize if you keep up this pace you'll begin to read more books and understand more. I sincerly hope you remain curious about Christianity and don't "hit the light switch" in a year or so, where you stop reading and looking for answers and instead live and die based on the beliefs you were handed when you were a child. Here is the book. You can get it at the library. You don't even have to like it, all you have to do when reading it is ask, "Is this true? What evidence is there for this?"

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Christianity-Generations-Visionaries-Storytellers/dp/0060526556 Biblical1 74.128.175.136 (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that this is Biblical1. I've explained to you before that I read books from all points of view, and do not stop at those who "call my faith into question". Do not think me naive about the subject; most of my time is spent reading about the history and beliefs of this religion throughout time, from many different perspectives. I've asked you before to stop posting here, because I don't need your assistance in finding books on the subject.

Please know that your efforts, no matter how helpful you see them, are patronizing in my perspective. I'm not going to bother suggesting books to you, because I do not care what you choose to read, and because you believe without good support that I am uneducated in the subject, which offends me. There are experts and department heads at all points of the issue, and of all beliefs within the spectrum. I do enough reading in my own time to get through books which cover both sides of the issue at hand.

So, in summary, please cease your policy of suggesting books to me as if I am ignorant of the subject. If you'd like to discuss other things, I don't mind, but this habit of yours is not to my liking; I do not need to be "helped" in this area, though I appreciate the concern.--C.Logan (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Criticism of Christianity.

This user (Biblical1) is a rather inexperienced and problematic editor with whom I have some personal experience (on WP, I mean). His opening of a case when no other resolution attempts have been made is worth noting concerning the reason I came to your page to message you. As it stands, though, I have a few other issues with this user that I thought I would bring up to you, as you are an administrator and may have a recommendation for a course of action.

This user has a fundamental misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, and even recently deleted material from the page in question because "the individual espousing this opinion is sympathetic to Christianity". I'd noted on the talk page that if this is how Biblical1 wants to misread the policy, he should go ahead and delete Bertrand Russell and every scholar who opposes Christianity as well. As you can see, I feel very much that this user is either confused or is directly ignoring policy.

On one occasion in particular, the user apparently reported me to another user (under the mistaken impression that he was an administrator) with some rather malicious fabrications. The most disturbing element of this act was that it was committed from an anonymous IP, and was written from the perspective of a "neutral, concerned observer" and completely misrepresented my character and my argument (and made Biblical1 sound righteous). The anon betrayed his identity later by continuing to comment on my talk page with references to earlier posts which he had posted as Biblical1 (even though I had requested that he no longer post on my talk page). Thankfully, I explained the situation to the user in question, and he later noted his concern over the issue and his support for my side of the argument.

As you can see, I do have some history with this user. I, for one, am one of the editors who opposes the changes he is making (as I see them as completely misguided, or in direct ignorance of policy). I am tiring of this user's nonsense, because it is apparent to me (due in no small part to the personal messages left on my talk page) that this user is unwilling to adhere to the policy of NPOV as it is understood properly. Ironically, he accuses the users opposed to him of the very problems which he exhibits.

If this user continues to push his POV (or at least misunderstand policy) and revert pages and file undue reports, what should specifically be done? Reverts earn a quick punishment, but the other situations tend to be more difficult to resolve. He refuses to assume good faith concerning myself and the editors involved in the mediation request, so I'm unsure of the level of cooperation he will exhibit if any resolution actions are taken against him. Additionally, I rarely have to open dispute resolution cases, so I'm unsure where to start if these problems continue. Any advice you could offer would be appreciated.--C.Logan (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem you describe above would probably be best suited to getting more opinions on the matter. My suggestion would be filing a user request for comments on Biblical1 and seeing what consensus and/or suggestions comes out of it from uninvolved Wikipedians. That way, if there is consensus to take further action, it's clearly documented and the support for such is unambiguous and all in the one place. Cheers, Daniel 01:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice.--C.Logan (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I appreciat it, Sorry I didn't get back to you as soon as I should I havn't been feeling so great and have many doctors app. to find out what's going on..... Thank you and God Bless...... If you get back to me try and do it on my talk page, thank you.... Rianon Burnet 14:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity

Hi C.Logan; I appreciate your work. My thought in editing 'divisions of Christianity' and 'test of orthodoxy' is that both terms in bold may be too strong and could impress upon the reader something less than a npov. However, I accept your judgement on the matter. Peace to you, Jc3schmi (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see as much of a problem with the latter (Trinitarian is a belief considered orthodox by its adherents, and it is certainly used by Trinitarians to establish whether or not a denomination is simply a denomination or whether it is some sort of heretical establishment). While we're on that word note, "denomination" should really replace "divisions"... I think.--C.Logan (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas

[edit] Merry Christmas

Hi C.Logan!!!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!! I hope you have a successful year to come!!! Best, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion moved

I have placed a copy our previous discussion on forced conversions to Talk:List_of_converts_to_Islam#Re:_forced_conversion. I did it so everyone else could also contribute.Bless sins (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arrow performing vandalization

Do you agree that Arrow is performing vandalization here (Imad marie (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

Imad, vandalism is very specifically defined. He's not vandalizing, but I think what you actually mean is "edit-warring". I can't say whether or not that's the case- it really depends on the actions of all parties. If you feel that that is what's going on, please express to him that you would prefer that a discussion be carried out concerning the inclusion or exclusion of such information. It would be best to leave the information in, but to add this at the top of the section in question: {{Content}}. This tag will let readers know that the inclusion of certain information is disputed.--C.Logan (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Just a heads up that Basem3wad (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked. Thanks for participating in the discussion at Talk:Muhammad. Oh, and Happy New Year. --Strothra (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Islam

Do you have that article on your watchlist? There has been a large amount of what I consider to be vandalism on that article today. What is your opinion? Arrow740 (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I typically avoid topics that have very high traffic, because it fills up my watchlist with comparably small and agreeable changes and makes it more difficult for me to find cases of vandalism or other violations in less-frequently-edited articles. I'll take a look at it.--C.Logan (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For no particular reason

Hope you have a good day! Nengscoz416 (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.-- GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.-- GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are the one who fist broke the "assume good faith" policy by deleting my addition of a reference without discussion. I consider all trinitarians in general to be desperate and when I undid your delete I didn't know who you were. I don't care if you chose to take it personaly as an attack. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You should re-read the policy, because I haven't violated it. AGF applies to editors, not actions. I believe that your intentions may be reasonably good; however, in light of your own attitude and actions, I'm not even required to continue following the policy. In any case, note that this was the motivator behind my actions: Assuming good faith is about intention, not action. Well-meaning persons make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. Your additions were problematic, so I was correcting you. The policy simply wouldn't work if it were interpreted as you think. Additionally, note the inherent problem with your attitude- discrimination is an ugly thing. Replace the religious descriptor with a racial one, and you'll see what the issue would be with making those sorts of judgments.--C.Logan (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like an administrator to assess these charges, as you seem to be placing them here without justification (possibly only because I warned you with these same templates). You are the one who is not assuming good faith and making personal attacks by accusing me of catering to my own viewpoint, when I've already explained the problems with your additions.--C.Logan (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Point out the page and the specific diffs you're talking about, and I will review them. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

[edit] Is Najjar a reliable reference?

You are invited to participate here (Imad marie (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC))

Thanks. It's a bit late, but I'll take a look after work tomorrow.--C.Logan (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism and Wicca compared to Islam

I was intrigued by your comparison of Buddhism and Wicca to Islam in the recent discussion in Talk:Muhammad. What, precisely, do you mean about conversions rates and the former two religions? Frotz (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

People often repeat the claim that Islam is "the fastest growing religion" without ever analyzing the source or asking "in what sense"? Total numbers? Birth-rates? Conversions? Immigration? Percentage rates? Christianity is the fastest growing religion in terms of absolute numbers, whereas- amidst conflicting figures- Buddhism and Wicca are two examples of religions with an extremely high growth rate (Buddhism, if I recall correctly, has a supposed 16% growth rate, which would likely make it the fastest growing major religion- that is, if its status as a religion wasn't so complicated; Wicca, with its initial low numbers, has somewhere near a 238% growth rate).

The statistics for Buddhism are extremely complicated and confusing- discrepancies in population and growth are extremely dramatic. "Conversion" to Buddhism is complicated because of its adaptability to other faiths as a non-theistic philosophy, and here in America there are quite a few people who adopt Buddhism as a peripheral philosophy (or as a defining philosophy in addition to their own essentially nominal faith). There is a current revival of Buddhism in India, and interest in the West has always been great. The point of my example was to discourage tunnel vision and the misuse/abuse of sources by providing examples which could be considered the "fastest growing" religions by other definitions of the term. Islam, as far as I can see, certainly has the highest birth-rate of all religions (or rather, Muslim-majority countries do), but as for highest conversion rate, highest overall growth, etc., the picture is not so clear.--C.Logan (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think that Buddhism had so much vitality as of late. Clearly Wicca has a very high growth rate, but given its still low numbers overall, I'm not sure that stating 200-ish percent is meaningful. I wonder how it compares with all neo-pagan faiths. For what it's worth, I'm quite sympathetic towards Wiccan and Buddhist thought, though I'm not one myself. Do you have any pointers to things I should read on the real growth of various religions? Frotz (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Depictions of Muhammad

Wow ... I'm admiring your ceaseless work on the Talk:Muhammad page. You should have some sort of big sticker/template that has 'read the FAQ' in big letters, to save you from having to type it out each time. Bravo, sir! --Wikinterpreter (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Muhammad#NOTICE_about_image_discussion

I've created this initiative (and notice new banner at top of talk page) so that we will remove any sections below the one I just linked and add them to Talk:Muhammad/images to begin to clear up that page and maybe stop some of this madness. I did this boldly since nothing else was really being done and I hope you will support it. Feel free to keep up your work on /images but I think it is a problem that Talk:Muhammad was becoming more of a political discussion forum than an article talk page. Thank you. gren グレン 22:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi C. Logan, reading your post here was quite refreshing given the standard of discourse that has recently prevailed on the talk page. I backed away from this issue a long while ago during mediation, mainly because I was getting fed up with the incredible levels of bad faith which poisoned the atmosphere. Given your thoughtful comments, I'd like your views on my response here and elsewhere. Off-wiki events make a discussion like this much harder to conduct, I understand that, but I am eager to seek a resolution that is entirely policy-based and will at least satisfy the majority on both sides. The censorship of depictional tradition is not an option, but my main concern is the presentation and undue focus on it. It is the latter I think others are (perhaps unconsciously) concerned about primarily too, you don't really see the same levels of vandalism on Depictions of Muhammad. Regards, ITAQALLAH 19:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Mohammed Talk

The comments (regarding principles to be applied)were eventually signed, and so were not only valid but differentiated from Aminiz. I believe Suggestions for additional prinicples should be welcomed. What are your thoughts C . Logan. 78.86.19.98 (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammed:Talk - Anon users

I just thought you might want to know a couple of things I found regarding the anon users raising heck on the Mohammed page. 72.48.250.225 - Whois says this user's IP is registered to Grande Communications, San Marcos, TX (outside of Austin).

72.179.59.200 - Traceroute packets die at a Road Runner router in Austin, TX.

70.112.75.86 - Traceroute takes this one to Austin, TX as well.

146.6.25.210 - Traceroutes to a classroom computer at the University of Texas at Austin.

One person? Quite possible as all of these IPs are geographically close and the style and substance of the objections is very similar. Too bad there's no way to cut Texas from the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.179.10 (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

IP user confirmed it. Moving around for work is her excuse. -68.100.179.10 (talk) 02:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Message

You quote the text with the footnotes included ("[8][9][10]")- I suspect that those are the sources in question. Islam does recognize all prophets as "great", but that doesn't equate to "greatest", which is something that- to me- seems to be a fairly ubiquitous belief amongst Muslims. No other prophet receives the same treatment in terms of emulation and reverence.--C.Logan (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)117.20.28.14 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr.C.Logan. "Like you said, Islam recognize all prophets as GREAT", but our last Prophet Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W.S) has some more Specialty that nobody ever had or will have in future. I can show you numerous articles regarding this matter. The most noticeable among those article is "The Merajj" when Hazrat Muhammad (S.A.W.S) was chose to see the God (ALLAH) by his own forehead eyes. Mr.C.Logan, look around you and ask yourself that what's your actual life aim, let's suppose that you want to be something in you life, you want to get marry with a woman and like that you have so many wishes that you think you will fulfill some day one by one, but, the point is after all that what's next ?

Note: Feel free to contact me on my e-address noshad_y@yahoo.com.

What's next is, most hopefully, a place among the saints before Christ himself, though I deign to speak of it so casually. I don't believe that I (nor anyone else, for that matter) can vouch for that sort of placement in this life; such a statement would be a self-defeating show of pride, and I would prefer to simply admit my own shortcomings. Thanks for the message, anyway.--C.Logan (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  ? images

• Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Elaboration_needed.

I did not quite get your drift.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, check you email

Hope it helps. adriatikus | talk 06:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hm, although a bit too late. adriatikus | talk 07:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orthodox Christianity and alcohol

Hi! Thanks for helping maintain Christianity and alcohol. I see you're an Orthodox Christian. Do you have access to any reliable sources that discuss the Orthodox position(s) on alcohol? We talked about it here, but there are no sources given. I don't find any mention of the eastern church being affected by the spirit of the prohibition era, which is itself significant since proponents like McClintock and Strong in their Cyclopaedia take pains to enumerate how much progress the temperance movement made among Christians. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)