User talk:Ephilei

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some of these conversations are copied from my former talk page, User talk:JBJ830726. --Ephilei 19:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Password Request

I received an email that I requested my password be sent to my inbox, but I made no such request. (???) --JBJ830726 18:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for Caelestius

Hello, good work on Caelestius, and thanks for the contribution. However, you forgot to add any references to the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. What websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Caelestius? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? Thank you very much. - SimonP 05:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caelestius Updated

Hi! Fresh from the update on Pelagius, I tackled the article on Caelestius tonight. The note said it lacked context, so I fleshed it out and added religious context, taking care to remember that non-Christians (and non-theologians!) were going to read this article. Let me know what you think! Nhprman 05:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gospel of Barnabas

I have added a few chapter references to your suggested bullets on anachronisms - and corrected what I took to be imprecisions and errors. I amnot sure that this material adds a great deal though, as much is already found in the links to Islamic and Christian polemical sites. Demonstrating that the GOB contains anachronisms is in no way a refutation of the thesis of some Muslim commentators that it ought to be preferred to the canonical Gospels. It is axiomatic in Islam that all Christian Gospels are corrupt, except where they conform to the Qur'an. Hence the GOB is not claimed to be free from later corruption, just less corrupt than the canonical gospels. TomHennell 14th Jan 2006

[edit] Blu-ray Disc

Just wanted to ask, the outdated info you removed (at least with Sony releasing Blu-ray recorders in Japan) did happen, didn't it? I mean, I thought they had some expensive set-top Blu-ray recorder they released in Japan that used caddies for the media (and would actually be incompatible with the final Blu-ray disc format we'll see (hopefully) this year; but it's still interesting from an historical perspective). I believe you were correct to remove the other info about LG Electronics though. Feel free to respond here or on my talk page BTW. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Haman(Islam) article

I just wanted to let you know that I sharply disagree with your edits. I don't have time to discuss them with you right now, so, will not revert your edits at the moment. But will get back to you soon. --Aminz 07:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

K. Wow, that was fast. --JBJ830726 07:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I am ready to talk. If you would like to revert some of my edits before discussing them, that's fine. I am ready to talk. Please let me know what passages do you disagree most. I need to go somewhere now, but will be back in an hour. thx. --Aminz 06:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for my delay in answering your comments on the talk page of Haman. I'll get back to you soon. --Aminz 22:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Username change

Hi JBJ,

Please put your request at Wikipedia:Changing username. Thanks! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 16:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I think you were requesting the talk page be deleted, someone else beat me to it, please let me know if that wasn't what you were looking for -- Tawker 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Bible as Myth

I saw your objection to the deletion on Tawker's page - You may want to review these articles: Higher criticism, Textual criticism, Criticism of the Bible (has the non-NPOV conforming tag, or Biblical studies as a starting point - wikipedia adequately covers scholarly discussion of the bible. Trödel 14:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks a lot! --JBJ 18:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bible verses

There was an acrimonious debate about the inclusion of individual Bible passages which resulted in a consensus that only those passages which are independently notable should have separate articles. If there is a passage which is independently notable (be it a chapter, a couple of verses or half a book), please do ensure that you provide the context for its independent notability. An article for the sake of having one on each chapter in a given book is likely to cause problems. Just zis Guy you know? 20:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global Reserve Bank Deleted..:-(

Hi,

Thanks for your support in this voting... somehow it was deleted and I dont understand how it could be with so many Keep votes and so pore arguments for delete?? Do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Global_Reserve_Bank --Swedenborg 19:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion decisions are not strictly democratic, they are based on consensus. I didn't follow the discussion very closely, but the consensus does seem to be delete - simply bc many people gave detailed reasons for deleting and only you gave detailed reassons not to. (Wikipedia will always favor the input of many over the input of an individual, even if the individual is more correct.) Rather than contesting this deletion, take the time to improve the article in the way others criticized, including generally lengthening it. Or, I'd advise, choose another area to contribute. --Ephilei 07:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi again, how is everything? I have been busy and my Wiki work have been low.. Still interested to support you in any questing and votings if needed :-) Have given up on Global Reserve Bank article for now but I realy, realy belive that a link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_economics (that has developed to a good one) is at least minimum level for GRB presens on Wikipedia. Check out http://lellebylle.blogspot.com/ www.grb.net and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EcoTheology (one of the articles I have been involved in recently.) --Swedenborg 05:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of critics

I simply renamed the group.--CltFn 21:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-notability

Hi, sure I'd be interested in helping draft a proposal. How bout we write it here: Wikipedia:Non-notability. I think the essay should include reasons such as people being deturred from wikipedia - I've heard a lot of people are being frustrated into leaving - a couple of the people i've worked with have said they were leaving because of an inhospitable environment.

However, I think this shouldn't be a 100% inclusionist policy for all non-notable articles. If possible, it would be very significant to be able to draw a clear line as to how to differentiate between articles that violoate *other* policies when they are "non-notable". We need to emphasize that non-notable articles in many cases violate official policy, and that *those policies* should be used as grounds for deletion or revision, rather than notability. We should also include quotes from Jim Wales, and other people that actually work at the foundation to support the proposal.

Any other ideas? Fresheneesz 04:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Feminism

There is now an article on Christian Feminism. Please constrain any edits there to ones based on notable sources. Clinkophonist 23:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] of interest

Thought you mind find this MfD of interest. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the note! A LOT of work? Oh no... :) But seriously, I am open to work on it. It's just an essay, open for other people's opinions and guidelines. Thanks for the link to WP:NNOT. PT (s-s-s-s) 22:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EI

Why not using EI ?? --Aminz 04:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because most people won't recognize what it stands for until visiting the link. If you you want to use EI, explain what it means first. Eg, "The Encyclopedia of Islam (E.I.) says . . . . E.I. also says . . ." --Ephilei 04:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have done this in the first sentence of this section. --Aminz 04:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That's fine!--Ephilei 04:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic view on Jesus death

Thanks for reminding me. I actually couldn't grasp the flow of information but now, with my contribution as well in the section, it makes more sense. I'll try not to repeat this mistake. --SaadSaleem 05:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very simple. Scholars like Ghamidi and Islahi interpreted the whole event through Quran. They believe that God never allows His Messengers to be dishonored by their enemies, even their dead bodies. Swoon hypothysis is not accepted by any big scholar to my knowledge. Swoon hypothesis is against Qur'an because Qur'an explicitly says that someone else was killed instead of Jesus. So I believe this is very important to mention in the article that Muslims have no two opinions about Jesus' rescue as Qur'an is very clear about that. The only debate is on "Jesus' return", which is subject to whether he was ascended alive or dead (death by natural causes and not by torture by his enemies). Once you are satisfied, I'll return the changes. --SaadSaleem 23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the verse from Qur'an to tell that Qur'an claims that there was God's wisdom behind deceiving the enemies, which we may or may not understand. --SaadSaleem 03:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! If I have anything else to say, I'll post on the Talk page. --Ephilei 08:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

While Surah 4.157-158 are the most often quoted verses and appear to deny his death, several other verses appear to affirm his death. Some scholars like Javed Ahmed Ghamidi and Amin Ahsan Islahi believe that Jesus did indeed die. in the article suggests that opinion of Ghamidi and Islahi are contradictory to verse 4.157-158, which is actually wrong. As these verses only say that Jesus was saved from his enemies and then raised, with which these scholars agree. The real dispute is on the translation of [Qur'an 3:55], which then definitely contradicts with many hadith related to Jesus second coming. I think, we need to change the tone of the article a little bit to make it compatible with scholars' writings. SaadSaleem 11:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Might be interested

Ephilei,

We are working on the Manual of Style for "Sources" on Islam related articles in wikipedia here[1]

Your comments there would be appreciated. --Aminz 05:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome.

BTW, re "This has caused some Non-Muslims to believe Jesus was more righteous than other prophets, including Muhammad."; who is more righteous before God, one who sins but then turns back and repents, or one who doesn't sin in the first place ;) You know which parable of Jesus I am talking about... --Aminz 05:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was talking about the same story and similar ones actually. But the story says: "I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent."--Aminz 05:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Domestic behavior in Islam

You may find this interesting. http://www.karamah.org/docs/DomViolfinal.pdf

It is written by Azizah Y. al-Hibri. It is a peer reviewed journal paper and qualifies as WP:RS. It is published here: Al-Hibri, Azizah Y. (2003). "An Islamic Perspective on Domestic Violence". 27 Fordham International Law Journal 195.

Thought it might be useful. --Aminz 06:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could you please help protect this article from unfair deletionists?

Hi Ephilei! I found you through Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians. I was hoping if you'd mind lending me a helping hand with International Institute of Management article . On August 10 an unknown person (no signature) marked it for deletion. Then —Ben FrantzDale conducted a good faith google search for “international institute of management” and it did not return a top result. – Which led him to support the deletion marking. Two other users followed saying that the website was not notable and the institute claims non-verifiable international connections. However, I have conducted a detailed research on IIM website, including IIM research section, press-releases, events and photos, as well as other independent websites and provided evidence of notability and verifiable references. However, my concern is that I’m only one vote against 4 vote and I do not know if any of them will change their mind (human nature!). Therefore, I kindly ask you to verify the links provided in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Institute_of_Management and help verify the notability. I’m not asking for anything less than an ethical vote. I’m willing to return the favor and review a similar article.Miro.gal

  • Comment Thanks for your help with the article!.

By supporting this article, you re-established my trust in Wiki and assured me that few deletionists cannot control it. You also won me as an active contributor to Wiki. Let me know how I can help :) Miro.gal

  • Question What happens next? Does your strong keep vote save the article? Do we need more votes? Who is the final decision maker to keep it or not? and do the tags on the top gets removed and when? Thank you for educating me and let me know if I can return the favor.
  • Question

Nickee has created a red banner and negative remarks about the seeking the support of inclusionists. She is creating bad faith. what can we do? Any advice?

[edit] IIM

Hi, I looked at the IIM article. I don't know if I'm qualified to vote. It seems like a very confusing situation to me. PT (s-s-s-s) 17:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ibn Khatir and Tabari

As to Ibn Khatir: "you can use the Google cache to access that website. But I think you need to know the full url first; perhaps if you don't, you can guess at what the url should be based on other examples and plug it into Google search and see if it finds a cache link."

As to Tabari: Please ask User:Zora. She should know.

Regards,

--Aminz 04:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tabari online

It's online only if you read Arabic. The English translation, through SUNY, is only available as printed material. It's not even in my online pay-library, Questia.

If you read Arabic, try [2].

I don't, dang it. I'll learn Arabic after I learn Hawaiian (which I start in less than a week). Zora 03:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help on Non-notability

People are trying to get this page (Wikipedia:Non-notability) marked as rejected. Please come and contribute on the talk page if you have time. --cfp 17:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please help

Hi! I got your username from the Association Inclusionist Wikipedians. I'm trying to work against a band of linkocrites (see en:User:cochese8). You look as if you're a valuable editor and I could really use some help [preserving] a great link. I would ask you to review the discussion and vote keep if you agree with the link's value. Thanks for your help! Cochese8 17:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit on your talk page

This was an admin rollback of an internal spam message that was being sent to every user in Category:Inclusionist Wikipedians. In addition to being spam and so unacceptable, the message accidentally placed all of these talk pages in the category. Inappropriate messages are often removed from user talk pages, only less obviously for this sort of spam than for vandalism or personal attacks. —Centrx→talk • 14:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] arbitration relating to NNOT

Hey, I just put together an arbitration case at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Harrassment.2C_talk_page_vandalism.2C_and_non-consensus_changes_to_guideline. I know you're not directly involved with whats going on, but I would appreciate your input - NNOT has been going through tough times btw. Fresheneesz 05:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politically motivated request for deletion?

Hi, I've seen some of your edits on Exodus International.. Alive in Christ is an ex-gay ministry at Park Street Church affiliated with Exodus International. I wonder if you would be willing to take a look at the article? Thanks. CApitol3 00:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amex Red card link removal

Hi, can you explain your rationale for removing the link that someone added to my Amex Red critique from the relevant page American Express Red? Calling it a 'bad link' doesn't seem explanation enough, and I'm sure I would find your reasons educational. Thanks SeanLegassick 20:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification that 'bad link' = unavailable and for restoring the link (and for appreciating the piece). I can only imagine my site was having an off day... SeanLegassick 22:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you may be interested in this article

See An-Nisa, 34. — coelacan talk — 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beloved Disciple

It means that the claim that Jesus' otherwise unknown son is really the Beloved Disciple is nonsense, and doesn't need to receive undue weight in its own section. If it truly is a notable theory, then more credible analysts than Simcha Jacobiovici need to be cited. And if it must be included, it certainly doesn't need its own section, simply because it was suggested in one Discovery Channel documentary.--Cúchullain t/c 00:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam?

If you continue to spam wikipedia, as you did to the entry of the Gospel of John, you may be banned from editing wikipedia. Please exercise caution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hurtstotalktoyou (talk • contribs) 14:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

After just a little research, it appears you're just a trouble making with a lot of bias. Some have called you a troll. Perhaps that's why all your edit page comments are complaints from others and you try to hide them: See user talk:Hurtstotalktoyou. The edits weren't spam - they were a long thought overhaul of that section. Do you know what spam is? Spam promotes a product, service, person, etc and I obviously promoted nothing except a better article. Further, reverting such major information is not a minor edit. I fear you did so to help cover your tracks to other editors watching the page. --Ephilei 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not de-revert your edits to the Gospel of John. They will be reverted or otherwise corrected as soon as noticed.--Hurtstotalktoyou 20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subpage misspelled

This is just a note that the POV subpage you created is misspelled, thus making it a subpage of a non-existant user rather than your own userpage. Also you misspelled "sporadically" on your userpage. Best wishes. --Blainster 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific, "User:Ephileli/POV" has the username ending "eli", while the username of these pages ends "lei", so the subpage you created has no parent (there is no User:Ephileli). And yes, as it happens I read Siddartha in the original German for a class in my student days years ago. It is an impressive book. --Blainster 18:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academic mythology

Thumbs up from me. See my response on the main mythology talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mythology#.22Academic.22_myth] Goldenrowley 04:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! I'm very excited. --Ephilei 05:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of the Quran

Thanks for taking an interest there. I should warn you that everything you add must be cited or it will be speedily removed. Arrow740 23:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truemyth template

I greet you from the wikiproject mythology project. We've begun to dicuss your truemyth template idea on the WikiProject Mythology talk page. You and I had the a very similar idea although I was thinking of a dragon picture. Would you like to join the discussion? We're discussing it here this week: [3]Goldenrowley 21:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Truemyth

Hi Ephilei, please note I redirected your template "truemyth" to "myth box" today... I like the idea but after the discusson at WP Mythology there was not a consensus, and it for months has said its not finished in its text. The place to put unfinished ideas is in your sand boxes where you may store them indefinitely. I suggest you put it there now or in "mythology" archives if you like. I hope you agree. Goldenrowley 06:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two-spirit: winkte

I have integrated it. Although I replaced "winkte" with two-spirit. -- WiccaIrish 01:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Old Irving Park

Dear Ephilei,

Old Irving is a neighborhood within the Irving Park Community area of Chicago. The article that was originally under Old Irving Park wrote about the history and development of the whole Irving Park community area, and not just 'Old Irving' (I personally suspect that the original poster had simply taken it off of the Old Irving Park Historical Association website). Since Wikipedia articles are written on a volunteer basis, the result is that there are often duplicate articles or ones that are misleading, as in this case. I hope that this clears up the issue--Orestek 03:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John merge

I think you should just write the article you have in mind. I wouldn't call it a merge. That just gets people scared that their articles are going to be destroyed. Just write an article explaining all the points of view about who John was and don't worry too much about merging just yet. People will like it, and then you can go from there. Wrad 20:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:SubArticle

Template:SubArticle has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Salzikrum

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Salzikrum, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Behind the eyes cover.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Behind the eyes cover.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)