User talk:Csernica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Csernica is taking a long wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia some later time.
This user may have left Wikipedia. Csernica has not edited Wikipedia using this account since December 21, 2007. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking the assistance of this user on this page, you may need to approach someone else.

Contents

[edit] Archive

/Archive 1
/Archive 2
/Archive 3


[edit] Polytonic template

Thanks for the information. Though I may not have to carry out any of the procedures you mention, it is clear that, for the sake of others, I must continue to use the polytonic template when writing polytonic Greek. Lima 04:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There is still the puzzling fact that, though I never made any browser change of the kind you kindly indicated, Wikipedia used, for me (and, if I understand rightly, for others too), to display polytonic Greek correctly, but then, I don't remember exactly when, ceased to do so. It seems then that some change was made at the Wikipedia level, not the browser level. Lima 06:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, all I can say is that the template worked for me when I came to this country and computer in March 2005 and for some time after, but ceased perhaps about - very vaguely about - a year ago. Perhaps Drboisclair has had the same experience and may remember better. Lima 07:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Earlier you wrote: "So first try adding this template where you're seeing improperly rendered Greek". Of course, outside that template only monotonic Greek characters displayed. But what was puzzling was that it was the Greek that was enclosed within that template that at some stage ceased to display properly. For Drboisclair, the Greek within the polytonic template is still improperly rendered, as I found out by checking that the change I noticed in my own display yesterday was due to the new browser, not to a Wikipedia alteration. When I first learned to use the polytonic template, one of my discoveries was that Latin characters within its scope also appeared with a typeface (which I took to be Palatino Linotype) different from that used outside the template area. Lima 07:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did that break the template?

Sorry about that. I should have tried it in a sandbox first, but I thought "48 pages, it's not that big a load". Sloppy, I know. Again, apologies for not testing it first. I did go and check one of the articles afterwards, and it seemed fine to me. I'm still not entirely sure what went wrong. Would you have time to explain? Carcharoth 22:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mormonism and Christianity

Csernica, you placed a tag on this article, but you did not explain your reasoning; was that something you were going to do? I am not sure if I am between your posting the tag and explaining it. I look forward to your comments so that the article can be improved. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Question about Neutrality Dispute on Mormonism and Christianity Page

Hey Csernica, First of all welcome to the Mormonism and Christianity page (or maybe you've been contributing for a while, either way I don't know you yet :-). Quick question for you...I noticed you had marked the article as in dispute for neutrality and accuracy, but you didn't post anything to the discussion board about it. If you wouldn't mind, when you get a chance could you please post something there outlining the parts you feel need work in this department? I'm sure everyone else who contributes here would be happy to work with you to bring the article into a state we can all be happy about, so if you feel there are parts that need fixing/eliminating, please outline them there so we can discuss what to do about them... Thanks! Mpschmitt1 00:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't place that tag all that long ago, and am in the middle of writing the post for the talk page. For now, let me just say the article has a heavy pro-LDS slant, and "mainstream" Christian beliefs are misstated as often as not. In general I prefer to fix instead of tag. I tried to fix this one, but there's just too much to rewrite. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm willing to do a lot of the footwork and present the changes to you for your feedback if you don't have time to do it... Just let me know what areas are problematic and we'll start working on them, or pick an area and we'll work one area at a time if you think it's too widespread a problem. We've wrestled really hard to keep the article in the middle though. It shouldn't be lds.org, but it shouldn't be equip.org either...The purpose is to present the facts on both sides and let the reader decide for him or herself what they want to think about it. Polemical attacks are out, but so are overly patriotic testimonies (in this context, though I am a Latter-day Saint myself, I realize that wikipedia is not the place to go proselyting...:-)Mpschmitt1 00:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

The Working Man's Barnstar
For helping us with the {{Infobox Album/color}} unit test, you deserve a small token of appreciation. Thanks! ReyBrujo 01:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-1958 Records in Sumo

Pre-1958 Tournament Boxes

Hey Csernica, I don't know if you have seen the comment here about using the template designed for modern basho being used for pre-1958 basho records, but I think it is a relevant. People, mostly PK3 and ASCE have put a lot of work into making tourney records for yokozuna of the past, and I applaud their efforts, but it is probably not the best template to use for them. Is there an easy way to tweak the template or produce an additional template to accomodate this? A disclaimer before each box could probably help explain a lot, but the headings (Nagoya basho, etc) are still there to confuse people. Any easy fix? Thanks for your time. Malnova 05:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media copyright questions

Thanks. Kindly remove or support my statement to clarify that matter. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 06:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tolkien AfDs

Do you know any appropriate sources for these other than the books? Uthanc 09:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity.

There's a little discussion going on at Talk:Trinity#Origins. The whole discussion is irrelevant to the article, and should probably be deleted. However, I have a hard time avoiding the temptation to respond to misguided nonsense and pet theories, so I chose to respond instead. I figured I'd let you know about the discussion, if you cared to say a thing or two on the matter. I'm keeping the discussion general, because it may turn up fruitless. Additionally, I'm a little rusty on this area of information... been spending too much time working and traveling.--C.Logan 02:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. I may have conflated the concept of progressive revelation with some non-Orthodox writings on certain other subjects. Although... I'm almost certain that a view along the lines of what I'd expressed was presented from an Orthodox standpoint. The mind is a jumble; I may have corrupted several ideas, such as the guidance of the Holy Spirit at the Ecumenical Councils, into this presentation. Hopefully, however, what I'd said was not too far out-of-bounds.--C.Logan 18:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eschoir

I have just noticed that Eschoir is, to my mind (only?), quite clearly the user who under the name User:Fairness And Accuracy For All was banned for one year commencing 00:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC), after being banned for ten days on 16 March 2007. The ban was reset on 6 September 2007 due to (unspecified) sockpuppetry.[1] I am unsure how to interpret the latest notice about this user; perhaps it indicates an indefinite ban.

Her first edit under the name Eschoir was on 3 March 2007, simply continuing, it seems, a discussion in which she was engaged under the name FaAfA (Fairness And Accuracy For All) concerning Free Republic. (By the way, I notice that at that time "I don't think" was a favourite phrase of hers as FaAfA, and again in her first edit as Eschoir.) FaAfA was formerly known as User:NBGPWS,[2] and was then characterized as "Troublemaker and vandal. Currently not concerned with anything but smearing Protest Warrior",[3] and as "Habitual Internet Troll."[4]

I wonder do you agree. If you do, and if you think something should be done about yet another sockpuppetry breaking of the ban, I leave it to you to do it. In a way, but only in a way, I would be sorry to lose her, since I find her somewhat amusing. Lima 15:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything you are not wrong about, Lima?Eschoir 15:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Not a confession, but who knows? Lima 17:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Estroit's ISP is 68.48.19.92 (Comcast Cable Communications Inc, New Jersey, USA), as seems especially evident in her recent "Eucharist" edit with this ISP number, and perhaps nearly as obvious in the earlier edits done anonymously from that ISP since March. The one pre-March 2007 anonymous edit from that ISP seems not to be in her style.
Perhaps we can conclude that either
  • Estroit is not FaAfA/NBGPWS; or
  • Estroit/FaAfA/NBGPWS began to edit anonymously only when banned in March 2007 (conceivably between log-ins under different names); or
  • Estroit/FaAfA/NBGPWS changed her ISP in March (conceivably to cover up her ignoring the ban).
I cannot judge which of these hypotheses is the most likely. Lima 09:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Your sexist bigotry is showing, Lim-ster, highlighting your seriously flawed judgment..Eschoir 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Was there anything you were not wrong about, Lima? Eschoir 05:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral sources?

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. Eschoir 15:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus

Forgive me for bothering you on a dreadful matter, but an anonymous user has me involved in a problematic discussion. In short, he is espousing the extremist theory that "Iesous" is derived etymologically from "Iaso/Ieso", a Greek healing goddess. This is a theory supported by Theosophists and gnostics, as well as Messianics who reject non-Hebrew names for Jesus. The genitive form of "Ieso" is indeed "Iesous" ("of Iesu" as it is claimed, in pagan name-form); however, this is as far as the whole thing goes. The problem is that the anon is citing Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon as a source which makes the connection, and even the Catholic Encyclopedia as another. Naturally, both these sources make no such connection, and it appears to be skewed interpretation and just plain wishful thinking that drives this user. I've already refuted him a few times using the sources directly, but I was wondering if I could find an observer- one who is familiar with the subject/language (or at least has a good eye for clear evidence). It's a mess, but a look at the history would give some order: [[Talk:Jesus#|here]. Even a simple look-over would be appreciated.--C.Logan 03:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a simple out: No arguments, no original research, he is limiited to published secondary and tertiary sources for his conclusions requiring expertise (such as language interpretation), as are you. Csernica's opinion can't help you. Eschoir 06:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This, again, is a person who doesn't understand the concept of "original research", and considers his own OR treatment of reliable sources to be obvious and valid. I've explained policy endlessly, and now I'm explaining why he is misunderstanding the text; trying to explain it to him is the hard part, as he is not very receptive. Csernica's opinion is less of a use than his possible expertise on the issue.--C.Logan 06:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

How much harm would it be to give him a footnote ?Eschoir 18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

C.Logan wanted support in an argument where the sources are fairly clear, in dealing with a troll who is insisting on his own way regardless of what any source says. It's my expertise in secondary sources he was interested in. As it happens, those already cited are more than sufficient; the troll is simply refusing to acknowledge them. If you haven't bothered to check out the problem and therefore have nothing meaningful to contribute but a personal slam, please keep out of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

So you agrree that your "opinion can't help", yet when I utter it it's a slam. I don't follow you.Eschoir 05:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the problem lies in the possible antagonism in the tone, which is very difficult to perceive online. The fact of the matter is that Csernica is more familiar with the subject than I am, and I had somehow hoped that the "troll" would eventually break the nonsense and actually agree to compromise (or drop the issue entirely). It's one thing to argue with an individual like me who simply has access to the sources and can argue using them, and it's another to understand the Greek language, theology and Christian history at an advanced level. I am familiar with these subjects, with the latter being more my focus, but in any discussion that is presumably between rational people, finding an expert opinion is useful. Unfortunately, this user is not rational in any way. I try to give benefit of the doubt to most anons/red-users, because they're more often than not unfamiliar with the encyclopedia, but this was an example of a wasted effort (though thankfully, this is not always the case).--C.Logan 05:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, dear. I hope I never said anywhere that I understand Greek well. I can look it up with a fair success rate, or I know someone I can ask who can point me to a reference, and I can follow a text with some labor, but that's about it. I admit to a great deal of confusion over shades of meaning in the aorist. (The rest of it I'll cop to.)
My wife calls this one manner I use my "scientist voice" -- apparently I'm capable of sounding as if I know exactly what I'm talking about, whether I actually do or not, and I never realize when I'm coming across that way. I had no idea it was being transmitted through the keyboard. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I know what you mean; I tend to use that voice with my best friend, usually because she likes to argue incessantly... so I usually make up something along the way that sounds convincing, so that the whole thing can just rest. It must be that you're certainly more familiar with it than I am, or that I may be rather lazy in my research. In any case, it's safe to say that you've shown a bit more familiarity with it, whether or not you were just coming off reading it in a reference text.--C.Logan 06:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ended

Let's just cut this off so no one wastes any more time. Eschoir contributed to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic, and I'm sure that he was closely scrutinized at that time as a possible sockpuppet of FaAfA. So we can all assume that he's not FaAfA, unless some very strong and compelling evidence can be supplied to tie him to FaAfA. This case lacks such evidence, so I'm closing it. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Fairness_And_Accuracy_For_All"

Eschoir 05:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat surprised by the decisive action on the basis of presumption: "I'm sure that he was closely scrutinized at that time as a possible sockpuppet of FaAfA. So we can all assume that he's not FaAfA, unless some very strong and compelling evidence can be supplied to tie him to FaAfA." But I do not intend to pursue the matter. Lima 11:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Christianity.

If you have the time, consider adding this article to your watchlist (if it isn't already). There is an anon/user who continues to revert to his revision, which removes sourced information and replaces it with unsourced text. Most interestingly, he eliminates sources he disagrees with and claims that we must adhere to NPOV. To him, apparently, "adhering to NPOV" entails removing all views in opposition to his, which are decidedly Christian.

I'm a little irked about the whole thing, because he left this message on my talk page, which left me rather offended (considering, in part, the earlier ending). I don't easily take offense, but when my intelligence in a matter is called into question, especially concerning belief, it strikes a nerve.

In any case, however, I'm assuming that he will persist in his changes, so I thought you might want to know about it, for the sake of NPOV treatment of religious articles.--C.Logan 06:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Media copyright questions

I don't know what my deal was either. I was operating in 3 hours of sleep over the previous 3 days, and by that time I wasn't thinking very clearly anymore (I was editing WP while waiting for my program to run...it was a real nightmare that, is, now, thankfully, over,,,) I'd tell you all about it, but I'm sure you're even less interested than I am.  :-) Cheers, Tomertalk 04:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retired

Hi again, RETIRED is indeed giving me problems. I was trying to use RETIRED in the tourney box, but it seems you have to specify a win/loss record or it will put 0-0-15, but many wrestlers retire after dropping below Makuuchi for which we don't record records. Is there a way to record RETIRED without recording a win/loss or does the template have to be changed? Thanks for your time. FourTildes (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC) (actually I'm former User:Malnova but I changed to this Username which I was more partial to.

Hey, while I am asking, I think it would be clear if the Sumo infobox read Current Rank, instead of just Rank. Is this an easy fix, I assume? If you are busy, don't sweat it. FourTildes (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you input. It seems kind of naked to have a retired box at the bottom in the legend but no retired boxes (as far as I know, it has not been used yet by any editors for retired wrestlers). The current rank thing would be a bonus as well.

About the shenanigans. You know, as much as I hate to say it, I wouldn't put it past them to pull shenanigans. The "elite" in Japan see the general public as gullible and trustworthy and will often do things they think our for "their own good" (for the public good and the ELITE's good) and they think they'll get away with it, even if it's practically obvious. Then again, it could have been Chiyotaikai being cautious, though he must have known that Kaio snuffs under pressure and that he still had a chance at the Yusho. FourTildes (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to review

Greetings, Csernica. When you have a moment to stop by, please look over the product of the revisions you initiated by your criticisms of Mormonism and Christianity. Numerous problems continue to exist in that article; many of them technical and stylistic. But more important, a general inadequacy will be perceived by many readers, in the fact that it consistently steps first with the LDS contention against Trinitarianism in favor of Mormonism - adopting the paradigm, for the purpose of comparison, that Mormonism is the pretended norm. This arguable defect is aggravated by the fact that the following step is usually not a rebuttal, but a explanation of Trinitarianism (or, this might be a good thing). But finally, the greater defect that may be perceived is that, regardless of strong hints to the contrary, it is not the Church that is compared to the LDS, but a "consensus". Unless that "consensus" is "the Church", a Christian reader can justly interpret the article to be arguing that the Church does not exist, because there is no embodied consensus called "Trinitarianism".

I would argue that some of these defects are imposed upon us by the rules under which we must operate; but it may be that what's lacking is the wit and wisdom to play the Wikipedia game to a more satisfying conclusion. I'm looking forward to your opinion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hey since you have intervened in the past I was hoping for your input on some of the work I am doing on the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In Rememberance of Father Nestor

I was hoping to write an article on Father Nestor do you have another source or further information on him?[5]. I will ask MishaPan as well. God Bless. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Christianity

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

- Tinucherian (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)