User talk:Homestarmy/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lots of Christianity related fun! :)

Contents

[edit] 24.199.67.217

Thanks for "following" him around and getting rid of his nonsense. --MessengerAtLWU 18:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...nonsense. Just like reading the bible literally.

You erased everything on the WOTM article and replaced it with profanity (how could I possibly take you seriously after that?), then proceeded to write on the articles for Cameron and Comfort that they were deluded and "religious imperialists" (in essence comparing them to the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition!). You can have that belief, but it is not at all appropriate for Wikipedia articles; start your own Web site for that. You must keep a neutral point-of-view in your editing. Also, sign your posts in talk pages with the signature button above the editing window. --MessengerAtLWU 19:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that you never addressed the issue of literal interpretation of the Bible. Also, I don't think it's "profanity" to say that people who reject the theory of evolution are deluded. In fact, I think it's profoundly ironic that people who reject such basic scientific truths use technology (like the internet) to spread their misguided beliefs. --24.199.67.217 02:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, people believe that we literally evolved from protocells a bazillion mamillion years ago or something, yet I have refrained from making ad hominim attacks on evolutionists so far on the talk pages of Evolution and Age of the Earth. I think a little quid pro quo would be not too innapropriate :/. Homestarmy 02:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry; I'm sure you are a very nice person. But if you really truly believe that "Science has brought on corruption of society," as it says on your userpage, isn't it a bit hypocritical to use the internet and wikipedia? --24.199.67.217 04:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that thing? Hmm, Quizfarm gave me that text automatically, I guess I should fix that rofl. Homestarmy 17:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I didn't address it because it isn't relevant. The issue is not "Is the Bible valid?" (although I would like to go into that with you at another time and place), but the issue is "Is what you have been doing considered vandalism of Wikipedia?" Please look at this or thisand try to tell me that what you posted there (or at least what was posted at the computer/IP address you are using) is not vandalism. [Sorry, this was me, MessengerAtLWU, but I'm doing exams in college right now and am a bit frazzled and forgetful.]

[edit] Am I crazy?

This is twice now that I've found myself in dispute with people who feel dictionary definitions (half-sibling, entombment) are OR and POV. Am I crazy, or does logic suddenly violate NPOV? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 20:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the dictionary isn't fundamentalist enough for fundamentalist english speakers.... :D Homestarmy 21:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I love your sense of humor. I think you can tell that I've been having a rather bad weekend. "Fundamentalist English speakers." This reminds me of Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass: "'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." Never mind the dictionary. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 21:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks, I saw the you premoted DNA Resequencer (Stargate) to a good article. I have been trying to get that on the list for weeks. Thanks. Also, do you think it's good enough to be a featured article? Tobyk777 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pics

There aren't any more pics because there are no more pics. those are the only 2 on the net. Tobyk777 23:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That might work, except i dont know how to take frames from a DVD and put them on a hard drive. Tobyk777 00:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The people that take fair use screenshots actualy upload them off the video footage. I never thought of taking a pic with a camrea off a TV. Would that seriously work? Tobyk777 23:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll try that. Tobyk777 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not willing to stand behind your own proposals

You offered a solution, I put it in the article, then you let someone else revert without a word of protest, just as if you had never made the proposal at all. We discuss things all day, but it means nothing as whatever you finally agree with is not something you are willing to stand behind. Drogo Underburrow 01:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
But the thing is, I was and still am of the opinion that "emtomb" is a compleatly correct word to use. but since you seemed to dislike it vehemently, I suggested a synonimous series of words, which meant exactly the same thing. As long as the article continues to mean "buried in a tomb", it is correct as far as im concerned. If somebody reverts it to "buried in a tomb", I will do nothing. if somebody reverts it to simply "buried", I will most likely qualify it with "buried in a tomb" rather than "entomb", to avoid this dispute. I just plain don't care that much when both "entomb" and "buried in a tomb" mean the exact same thing. Homestarmy 01:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 2+2=4, but some people feel that "=" is OR and "4" is POV. Check these comments in addition to Drogo's remarks at Talk:Jesus. RfC? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 03:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why an RfC is needed for such a tiny thing, we never used one even for our months long debate about the Jesus Myth, and that one probably could of been justified because of the undue weight thing :/. Homestarmy 12:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. There may be another way to deal with this. Jim62sch has requested that the page be locked. Frankly, the double blue stuff has me frazzled. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 13:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll look at the GAC, but I'm beginning to think that my time would be better spent at the CKB. Assuming a crusade doesn't break out or something. (Rolls eyes). Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 13:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Not many people seem interested in the CKB :/. But im about set to work on Chicago for the GAC, that can't be too frazzling :). Who knows, one of these days Christianity might show up on the collaboration nominations, won't that be interesting.... Homestarmy 13:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Cubs or White Sox? Some people take their baseball very seriously. Almost religiously. ;)
If I don't take a Wikibreak, I'll probably go back to doing what I did before Scifiintel drew me to the Jesus page: Work on articles about country music and Macintosh software. I'm particularly proud of my work at The Kentucky Headhunters. No edit wars there. No edits at all since December 31, 2005. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 13:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak over ;) Homestarmy, I was talking about an article RfC on Jesus rather than a user RfC against Drogo. It looks like we might be ready to move forward on Talk:Jesus—assuming you don't mind another vote. Grigory DeepdelverTalk 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well what's to vote on, despite the issue Oub is making out of his suggestion, at pure face value, his change isn't really very major and I don't see anything really wrong or bad about it. And the entomb thing is pretty much done, "buried in a tomb" is fine. Homestarmy 19:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The vote is to move from full protection to semiprotection. Also, I think that we may still have a problems with suspicion and lack of communication, but who knows? I may be wrong. Check User:Archola/Sanity to see where I stand on all this. Grigory DeepdelverTalk 19:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it should of been protected at all in the first place really, it wasn't that big a deal. Homestarmy 19:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but when somebody dropped that "No Criticism Allowed" rheorical napalm it did become a big deal. Not to mention that the Two Color Data website (not their real name, but you know who I mean) has had me freaked out since they added the Jesus article to their watchlist. This really started with the sockpuppet allegations at Christianity in February, but somebody just can't seem to let it go. Scary stuff. Grigory DeepdelverTalk 19:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWynekenTalk

[edit] Pope Pius XII

Thanks for reviewing this article! After I get finished with my midterms this week I am going to go through some books I checked out on Pius, particularly to make sure that the post-war section is complete. After that, unless the peer review turns up serious problems, I may try taking a pass at a FA nom. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus peer review

It appears to be over. Not too many comments. Okay, besides you and me, there was one comment.

Ah, well. We have enough to do as it is. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph#Version_5.0

Feedback please. - RoyBoy 800 04:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Feedback please for Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph#Version_5.2, key difference is mention of non-viability. - RoyBoy 800 15:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you object if I removed "usually" from 5.2? As far as I know prior to 20 weeks is universally "considered non-viable". - RoyBoy 800 15:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, could you add in there who it is that considers it that way, such as "considered non-viable by the medical profession" or something like that? Homestarmy 17:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Early Christianity
Abu Ghraib
John F. MacArthur
The Jesus Puzzle
Klas Pontus Arnoldson
Classical Theism
Non-denominational Christianity
Christian worship
Gregory Keyes
The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex
Heinrich von Marzipan
Satguru
Kenneth Kitchen
Social Security Act of 1965
Slogan 'Jesus is Lord'
Parables of Jesus
LITV
Antonio Ciseri
Pluralism
Cleanup
JC (disambiguation)
Life of Adam and Eve
Language of Jesus
Merge
Red letter edition
Failure of John the Baptist
Dramatic portrayals of Jesus
Add Sources
Mel Martinez
Paraclete
Church of Jesus Christ in Zion (Scientology)
Wikify
Similarities between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity
Hans Henning Atrott
Joseph Justus
Expand
Antiquities of the Jews
Predestination (Calvinism)
Jesus Christ as source of "A Course In Miracles"

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When in Rome

Since you're having so much fun editing Chicago for the Good Article Collaberation, I thought I'd let you know that it looks like either Rome or Belgrade will be the next week's Article Improvement Drive. Unless you're getting tired of editing city articles. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the Article Improvement Drive has plenty of editors, but the GACOTW needs help lol. Homestarmy 16:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I nominated Jesus for the AID. It looks like Chicago is failing its FAC. Maybe someone should nominate Chicago for the AID? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 13:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, im sorry, but Chicago just plain doesn't have very many references :/. And because of the extensive nature of the article, I would say a rather large plethora would be nice, especially of the book variety, similar to the kind of references in Berlin. Even with like 6 people working on the GAC, I don't know if we could really of helped that article :/. Im kinda hoping that one school one will win though, it looks super easy to finish it off if the references are all in order. Homestarmy 01:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Say, how do you check edit/article ratios anyway?

I don't know anymore. There's a tool on the German Wikipedia, but It's no longer being updated. I haven't been able to get the other tools to work. BTW, your Edits/page (avg) was 6.50 at last count. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 03:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the support on my RfA!

Image:Danavecpurpletiger.jpg A belated thank you to you for Supporting my RFA! I am still finding my feet as an Administrator, and so far I am enjoying the experience. I am honoured that you felt I was ready to take up this position, and wish to thank you formally! I hope I can live up to your expectations of me. Once again, thank you! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 18:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] truth

I honestly don't know how being born again equals complete proof of all Christian doctrine, maybe you can explain to me what being born again actual means, and why it is such an absolute event. Truth is something none of us will ever know completely, unless of course there is some event called "being born again" which ultimately proves things. As I was saying, applying this philosophy (that nothing is certain) to everyday life is dangerous, because there certainly is knowledge which can be used to predict future events and guide us through our lives. Currently, the scientific method is the best method for determining what is true, and what is not true with certainty, because it predicts the future more accurately than any other method of reasoning. It allows us to create great things and make correct decisions. It is, however, neither a religion nor a philosophy, and it is not designed to handle moral issues. When I talk about truth here, I am not talking about absolute truth, because no one but God "if he exists" could know it. The word fact, however, looses all meaning if it is applied to this notion of absolute truth; therefore, facts are used to label things which are true in the traditional sense. If I see a yellow car, it is a fact that the yellow car exists. I'm not going to analyze it absolutely and say,.. well,.. My senses are imperfect and it might not really be a yellow car. That will lead to insanity and probably end up making me travel around wikipedia arguing young earth ideas. My main concern was with scorpionmans statement that "Science has never proven anything to be fact!". No other method for predicting future events has proven to be as accurate as the scientific method. I never said it is perfect, but it is the best method we have for understanding truth within the limits of human understanding.--146.244.137.178 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think what the problem here is that we do not see traditional truth in the same light. When I think of truth, I don't think of the nearest collage's biology department, im thinking of what is right and what is wrong. But science isn't supposed to be deal with what is right and what is wrong, it is the metholodigy by which man wants to discover the principles of the world and of reality. I think Scorpionman might be confusing exactly what science is trying to do however, science isn't trying to prove anything as a fact, rather, people are trying to use its principles to understand the world around them, whether we're absolutly right about it or not doesn't matter, it shouldn't be an issue. I don't need to know what's behind the quarks of gasoline molecules to know that if I put that stuff in my car its going to get me to get from point A to point B in a relatively efficient manner, and in truth, nobody really knows compleatly what is going on behind those quarks, and even if scientific reaserch figures it out, then we have to ask "What's behind that? And that? And that? We don't know!". So really, neither science nor the scientific method can determine ultimate truth....because it doesn't need to, nor was it supposed to. It's like trying to apply the theory of relativity to ethics, the speed of light has nothing to do with people's conscience.
Now on the born again thing, im glad you asked :). See here's the deal, normally when people want to know when something is right or wrong, people will, you know, test it, right? Well Jesus did propose a sort of test in a way. Because He said that "whosoever believeth in men will be granted eternal life" and that "You must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven", both of them must follow from the other, by faith in Him, Jesus says that you will recieve eternal life, and since you also have to be born again, logically, your faith must make you become born again. Since it has to be faith in Jesus, you can't, for example, try to make up a Jesus in your own mind, such as one who thinks that all things are relative or whatever, and then try to believe in that Jesus, it'd be like trying to believe in nothing at all. By believing in Jesus exactly as Jesus really is, He promises eternal life, and as I said earlier, that means you'll be born again. Now, being born again isn't that complicated, basically, like Jesus said, you don't go into your mother's womb and come out again, your born again of the Spirit, basically, your old self dies away so to speak. You'll be a new person mentally speaking, I mean, it's not something you can't notice or anything, you won't be the same person as you were before anymore. Of course, simply trying to get eternal salvation as a test is probably a bad way to go about it because without an understanding of why we must be born again I don't see how you could possibly really have total faith in Jesus, but at the end its all the same, the claims of Jesus are proved true. Since His claims are true, and He quoted from like the first chapter or something or Genesis, that proves evolution is a lie since He validated Genesis, and it proves the rest of the Torah since that was after all what the first 5 books were known as back then, and well, everything basically falls into place from there. Homestarmy 22:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montheism

I know of no Mormon group that would clam to be henotheistic. I went a read the article on WIKI (I think it may need some editing; it claims Christians are Heno and Mormons, but does not give any reference). To rightfully be called henotheistic one must have a pantheon of gods to choose from and then one chooses to worshp a single god within the pantheon. Although LDS have speculated that there may be other gods in the universe, there is not a pantheon of gods to worship. There is one God and no other.

In my entire life I have never considered myself anything but monotheistic. For LDS, there is no choice of who to worship because there is only one God. I would ask you to study more about henotheism before leveling that claim again. Yes, I am aware of what others might claim Mormons to be, but I always like to hear it straight from the horses mouth. To find out how to build a watch, one does not go to the butcher. The butcher might have some ideas, but he does not know how to build a watch. When you want to know what a LDS believes, ask. It saves times, misinformation (generally) and communication has never harmed anyone. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing of it is though, I met a mormon on some other Wiki who revealed that there's some sort of other split in the church that is LDS but not "Mormon" whatever that means, so quite honestly, I don't know what Mormonism is anymore. I sort of suspected that there probably wasn't much chance that alot of Mormons were actually henotheistic, but that's why I said in my comment that I merely think that there was some group of Mormonism that was henotheistic, I don't know which one and to a point, I almost don't care. I always assumed that henotheism simply meant worshipping one God, yet giving acknowladgement to the existance of others, what would be the proper term for that then? Homestarmy 12:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
As you seem, I am still trying to get my arms around some definitions. The definition of henotheism does seem to be "flexible" depending upon which group is using the term and their objective. I believe that henotheism is more than just acknowledging the possible existence of other gods, but it is "knowing" them such as in Hinduism. They know the names, attributes, etc of their gods and they individually choose which god they will worship.
The Fundamentalist groups can get a little out there, but I am not aware of them have a belief system that would allow them to worship other gods. I do believe that many Mormons, as many Christians, do not understand the Godhead/Trinity. Peace. Storm Rider (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The Henotheism article seems fairly compleate on the subject, the intro seems to lean towareds the definition im thinking of but there are apparently some subdivisions and a section on Hinduism, so I dunno what that is all about. Homestarmy 12:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bible at WikiKnowledge

I have set up my own wiki, and I have just uploaded a Public Domain version of Genesis. However the page is extremely long and needs to be split up into smaller pages. This is not something I would be able to do as I have little interest or knowledge on the subject but perhaps you might be interested in having a look at it. http://www.gmcfoley.com/wiki/index.php?title=Bible/Genesis. I also have Public Domain versions of the other books which I would be happy to upload if someone was interested in formatting them. I should also point out that my entire wiki is Public Domain also. Please let me know if you are interested. Thanks, Gerard Foley 03:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity

Homestarmy, would you be willing to keep an eye on "Christianity"? Several editors are trying to make the intro hedge on whether or not it's monotheism. —Aiden 06:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been there through most of this argument already heh. I really do think KVs version is pretty acceptable, I mean, it still indicates that to most people it is clearly monotheistic. Homestarmy 12:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Scary indeed, but I guess some people just don't get the concept of tri-unity. Some nonchristians may see us as tritheists, but in fact the only Christians who professed tritheism rather than trinitarianism were denounced as heretics. Even Mormons profess monotheism, three persons in one God, regardless of what even some other Christians say. To say what Christians believe is different from what we profess is not far from calling us deluded or liars. So, yes, it is scary. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 18:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Umm... the anon simply removed half a reference and left open tags in the article. —Aiden 01:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I thought he just put in the words "Jewish sect". Homestarmy 01:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes: A New Proposal

Hey, I've noticed that you've been active on the Userbox deletion page, either strongly FOR or AGAINST the use of the new T2 for deleting userboxes. I have noticed that most of the community is strong in their opinions on this issue; for that reason, I created my own proposal which attempts to create a middle ground for the two groups, and finally get this debate settled once and for all. I welcome your input into the proposal, as well as your (non-binding) vote on the straw poll. Thanks! // The True Sora 01:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Project

Hi, Homes! Can you explain to me how to go about joining the project, how it works and what I would be expected to do if I signed on? --CTSWyneken 17:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the GA project is like most others, all you have to do is sign your name on the participants list, at WP:WGA. There's actually several tasks the Project tries to take on, most of which have to do with, well, good articles :). There's a sweep thing going on to check old GA's from when the project was going to make sure everything still complies with the latest Good article criteria, a WP:GA/D disputes page where people can give input on articles various that somebody thinks people should look at, we can always use more editors on the Nominations page to check the long, long list of articles to see whether any warrent promotion, (Make sure to check the criteria and rules first though), and my favorite, the Good Article collaboration of week, where Good Articles are supposed to be improved upon. I say "Supposed" because we don't actually have really many participants.....but several of the articles we've been doing are extremely close to FA material, their just often missing references in many places. Japan, the current collaboration, is actually a really nice looking article, but there's this odd dispute going on about racist accusations of where Japan got its heritage from, which seems odd to me because the article is very well referenced. Anyway, the project itself doesn't expect members to really do anything we don't want to do, just, you know, whichever part you want to work on you can work on it. Personally, i'd do the collaboration, because the latest articles seem relatively easy to bump up to FA status, but well, im almost the only one who does anything and it's difficult to do it alone :/. Plus, should any of the Christianity related articles become GA's, then we could use the collaboration to get them straight to FA if the collaboration gets more popular.... Homestarmy 18:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No more unmentionable site.

I just noticed that the unmentionable site is down. All that's there now is a directory listing. I'll take your earlier remark as a prophecy that has come to pass ;) Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 06:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, im not worthy! :D Homestarmy 12:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess not. It's back. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 01:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
See, that's why pride is a sin, I could of been caught in a lie! Humility FTW! Homestarmy 01:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian views of Jesus

Since you earlier were involved in some discussion on possibly merging this article, would you come to the Talk page and give some feedback to my suggestion that this article be redirected to Christology? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorrey

that edit was by accident, I got a error and nothing was changedTjb891

[edit] Missing quote

When I tried to follow your link, it took me to a non-accessible site, pay site if you will. That's probably why someone removed it. It certainly would be preferrable if you had a site that was publicly accessible or retrievable from a library.

KV 01:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yea, I just cited it because if you scroll to the bottom there's an except which backs up the information, and that's all it needs. But if its against the Citation policy, I don't mind it being removed, I just keep finding more of them anyway :). Homestarmy 01:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Comfort

This may interest you: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity#Ray_Comfort. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 04:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mormons and Evolution

While visiting Storm Rider's talk page, I saw your note. So forgive my eavesdropping, but a recent book might be helpful to you. Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding, by BYU alumni Trent Stephens and Jeffrey Meldrum, with Forrest Peterson. A review of the book by Melvin N. Westwood summarized the findings as follows:

The book's thirteen chapters have an eleven-page bibliography and a few illustrations relating to biological evolution. Here is the main point from each chapter: (1) the universe is billions of years old, follows natural laws, and was created by God for mortal existence; (2) Mormon leaders say leave the theology to theologians and science to scientists; (3) many Mormons think biological evolution false but science and Mormon theology cannot conflict; (4) Mormon leaders' 1909 statement did not reject evolution; (5) science is based on facts; religion on faith; (6) fossil evidence and DNA data support evolution and Neo-Darwinism but some evolution is directed by God; (7) DNA evidence links all life forms, but God created humans' physical and spiritual natures on different time lines; (8) Joseph Smith said God created humanity's spirituality before physicality; (9) organic evolution is the honest result of scientists explaining the evidence; (10) oldest fossil bacteria in rocks are 3.5 million years old; (11) Genesis is compatible with evolution; (12) evolution may be partly random and partly non-random; (13) biological evolution is one step in the process of eternal progression from humans to gods. The book's main point is to present modern biological evolution as established fact and to make Mormon theology compatible with it. In the past, Mormons opposed evolution. The book weaves evolution with Mormon belief that God was once a man and that he evolved into God.

Hope that helps a little, but I suspect the "average" Mormon would tell you that he/she does not believe in evolution. Please note I'm not average in that respect. The Church, however, still affirms the 1909 statement on the subject which did not reject evolution. Best wishes. WBardwin 20:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI: The Restoration Branches are very strong Creationists, so once again, whatever the LDS happens to believe does not apply. --BenMcLean 17:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leigh Richmond Roose

Thank you for taking the trouble to review the above for "Good article" candidacy (which, incidentally, I neither solicited nor desired). I have posted replies to your queries on the relevant talk page, and copy them here in case you have not added it to your watch list. Mikedash 14:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

The article is, necessarily, based on the information available. I put in as much balance as I could; Roose is described as reckless, for instance, and there's a section on his bad temper. Thre simply aren't that many more criticisms on record, certainly not without going back and doing a match-by-match study of his playing career. There was just a lot more hero worship in those days, I suppose.

As to the specific criticisms, "Roose was renowned as one of the best players in his position in the Edwardian period" is simply true, and note that it is not given as my opinion - "Was one of the best players" - but as reported fact: "Was renowned as...". This usage is justified in the text - cf. his selection to a "World XI". Would it really be POV to apply such judgements to Banks or Yashin, say? "Roose was well qualified to play in goal" is similarly justified, in terms of his height and weight, and the reasons for this, given the footballing style of the period, are explained.

Eccentricity: it's a contentious topic, of course - one man's eccentric is another's beacon of sanity - but, again, I think it is beyond question that Roose was regarded as eccentric, and probably played up to the image. I refer you to the following citations (full bibliographical information for the books can be found in the references to the article):

Nick Hazelwood, In the Way p.46: "Roose's sense of humour, eccentric goalkeeping and extravagent behaviour made him an instant hit with the crowds... one of the great footballing and great goalkeeping characters of his time. His wanderings up and down the pitch, sorties into the crowd, his insistence on playing in the same unwashed kit for Wales, his penchant for a practical joke and his hiring of trains for personal use at Stoke City's expense all made him an amusing and likeable celebrity."
Geraint Jenkins, "Leigh Richmond Roose" in For Club and Country: Welsh Football Greats p.23: "It is one of the commonplaces of sport that a goalkeeper is rather different from the rest of mankind. From the days of William ("Fatty") Foulke, who used to get his retaliation in first by waddling naked into visiting dressing rooms to intimidate opponents and referees to Rene Higuita (El Loco), the eccentric Columbian keeper, goalkeepers have taken pride in being deemed a breed apart. Arguably the most gifted superman of them all was Leigh Richmond Roose, the "prince of goalkeepers" in Edwardian Wales, whose curriculum vitae was a thing of wonder..."
Bob Wilson, You've Got to be Crazy p.44: "The joker in the pack in the early breed of keepers was Dr Leigh Richmond Roose."
Francis Hodgson, Only the Goalkeeper to Beat p.162: "Leigh Roose, the eccentric Welshman who never used to change his goalkeeping shirt..."
Playerhistory.com: "Played the 1910 Scottish Cup semi final for Celtic as an amateur - Celtic lost 1-3 to Clyde and the eccentric goalkeeper shocked fans by racing from his goal to shake the hand of Clyde's third goalscorer!"
Carling.com: "Leigh Richmond Roose, an eccentric Welsh goalkeeper who was an amateur, would hire a train especially to take him to International venues, when he had finished his medical duties. He had an elaborate pre-match ritual of pacing his goalmouth - no one ever knew why!"

Finally, discussion of the number of clean sheets kept by the player - "A remarkable record not least because his team flirted dangerously with relegation in 1901, 1902 and 1904" - does, I concede, require some statistical justification, but I'm happy to provide it; if we look at, say, the record of Portsmouth, the team finishing fourth from bottom of the Premiership this season, one above the relegation places, we see that the team kept only 5 clean sheets in its 38 games, or 13.1%, compared to Roose's record of 27.8% clean sheets at Stoke (http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/teams/Portsmouth.html). Hope this helps deal with your questions.

[edit]


at the top of your edit will move your text below any graphic. Herostratus 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pope Pius XII FAC

I nominated Pope Pius XII to be a Featured Article. As you promoted this article to Good Article status some time ago, I thought that you might have some perspective on how the article stacks up against the featured article criteria. You are the only person I know of currently who is (somewhat) familiar with the article without having invested so much time in it as to be biased. I would appreciate your comments at the nomination page linked above, whether or not you choose to join me in supporting the article. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 25

I see that you've made several comments at the Talk:25 December page, and I was hoping that you could please add your vote to the straw poll, as there appear to be two users that are bent on not having Jesus mentioned in the article. — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 20:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethics in the Bible

Which verses would you sort of like to know? Dan Watts 01:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to know which verses in particular Clinkofist or however its spelled means with the whole "A woman could be stoned for being raped in some circumstances" thing, it sounds a bit odd, I mean I know I kinda lost focus on Leviticus when I first read through it because its a hard, long read, but I just thought I would of noticed something like that. Homestarmy 02:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well in Deuteronomy it (King James Version) says:
Deu 22:23 If a damsel (that is) a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Deu 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, (being) in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
Deu 22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; (there is) in the damsel no sin (worthy) of death....
(Parenthetical words are interpolated and not in the original language)
It appears that her stoning was predicated upon her silence. Dan Watts 02:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, but the sentence in Ethics in the Bible made it sound like women would be killed for rape in some circumstances, but the first part just says if they lie together, that don't sound like rape to me :/. Homestarmy 03:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It sounds like fornication (or possibly adultery for an engaged person), but did you truly expect some even-handed discussion in that forum? Dan Watts 13:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I technically haven't even brought up the issue, I just asked in my edit summary heh. The thing of it is, i've tracked this article for a long time, and quite frankly, its a mess. I think pretty much all of it is OR, I think huge chunks of it are pretty irrelevant, and I was going to write up a huge critique of it but then the article was heavily altered :/. To tell you the truth, im not even sure if this topic even belongs on Wikipedia, in a way, it seems almost like a kind of rant. Homestarmy 14:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bananas

There are multiple sources referenced, both for the history of the domesticated banana, and for the existence of multiple banana species (most of which aren't really very palatable), in the article on bananas.

Domesticated bananas are to wild bananas as corn-on-the-cob is to teosinte - and you might not be aware of this, but the domesticated banana has been bred such that it's incapable of reproducing without human intervention. Wild bananas, conversely, do just fine. DS 17:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The other type of banana the article mentions seems to be saying that its used in cooking, I think the point is that the banana in whatever capacity you care to refer was readily usable by people when it was first found. Homestarmy 17:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peace Dollar/GA

Hello! I left a note on the Peace Dollar talk page, regarding your comments on its Good Article nomination. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any other questions or concerns. Thanks! --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hagee

"I find it hard to believe that the publishers would let his book slide by mis-spelled"

Hmmm, how about a careless, sleepy editor retyping several lines of all-cap text?  :) Kuru talk 04:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, from what I hear, the publishing process for books is pretty rigorous, that'd be a whole lot of sleepy people not doing their jobs right. Homestarmy 04:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I meant me. I botched re-typing the titles away from the all-caps format. By the way, the "he said/she said" book they authored appears to be sold as just one book - it's just a flip-over. Take a look at the amazon listing and make the call. ok, sleepy time. Kuru talk 05:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh That editor, heh, I guess we're all getting kinda sleepy these days eh? Homestarmy 03:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus the Messiah

Thank you for the message. Perhaps I should have phrased my edit summary better. As the article states, "The long-term goal of Jews for Jesus is one of conversion of all Jews to accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah — a position which is usually characterised as Christianity." Islam is completely out of picture here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity tag

Thanks, for correcting me. Str1977 (smile back) 17:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy VI collaboration

I noticed your interest in this, and I REALLY want this thing to be featured, and I think we should be able to work together on this, especially because the people at WP:FF are working on other projects, meaning without you, I'm really on my own on this, and I can't do this alone, as you know. I'm adding some sections so that they match up with FFVIII and FFX, two of the best FF articles. I need your help with rewriting prose, adding material, removing redundancy, and making sure everything, even storyline material, is properly referenced. We need to recruit some more people. Crazyswordsman 22:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. We need to spread the word around, and I can't do it alone, sadly enough. Crazyswordsman 00:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HKT GA nomination

Could you please be a tad more informative on the H-K-T talk page? I mean, what's specifically wrong with that article, or what is it that is not covered sufficiently? AFAICT all notable facts are already mentioned and I'm not really sure what is it that you mean. Thanks in advance. Halibutt

[edit] Talk:Kanclerz

Replied there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restorationism

The Restorationism article is in terrible shape. Amongst its many problems is a complete lack of citations. Do you have any online resources that you feel might help in a cleanup of that article? Everything from style and form to grammar needs attention; I'm willing to do a chunk of the work in cleanup, but I don't have the source background to do it right. Anything you can direct me towards would be appreciated. Thanks, -Kevin/Last1in 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

I can't begin to tell you how many times I've confused your username with HOTR's. Sorry for any frustration my boobheadedness may have caused. FeloniousMonk 18:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't really notice any dispute between us, the closest i've come to interacting with you that I remember is seeing your name keep popping up on the watchlist of the ID article heh. Homestarmy 20:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] P.N.03

Sorry to bother you, but when I checked this article, all I saw was Highway failing it, and there's no entry on the disputes page, why was this article relisted? Homestarmy 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me because the article was back to the GAN process. I have re-checked the article, and all the points were assessed or a comment was given for the rest. IMO, the article is broad enough altough the sections aren't that full ... since WP is a work in progress, the article will grow. As of now, all the articles criteria on WP:WIAGA are met. Lincher 23:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you the same Homestarmy from the Christianity Wikia?

you look like the same guy ... --BenMcLean 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I was asked to come over to there by NSandwich awhile ago, I didn't know you had an account here too :/. Want to come help us over on the Jesus page, i've been hoping we can get it featured for awhile since, you know, the more publicity Jesus gets the more people might get interested in learning who He is, but we just keep running into the weirdest issues :/. We could certainly use more people :).Homestarmy 23:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, good to meetcha again. :) It might be a good idea to link your user pages together with your other user pages so people know that they're talking to the same person on different sites. Also, registering an email address and setting it in the preferences so people can email you can come in handy. --BenMcLean 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unfulfilled prophecies

I think it is good to include the JW information on that page, although I think that it would be better to put it in a separate section for JWs, perhaps with a note that they are not considered to be Christians by mainstream Christian denominations. BenC7 04:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what I meant was it might be better to put it in its own section on the same page. I think a person reading the article might just lump them all together and think "Look at those stupid Christians". If the JW stuff was denoted separately it might be easier for people to make the distinction. BenC7 04:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think so, particularly if it was in paragraph form. You had about six short sentences there, which is about the length of some of the other sections. BenC7 04:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It might also be worth you checking out the Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses article, which is currently undergoing revision and is in need of expansion in the "unfulfilled prophecies" section. You seem to have the relevant information. BenC7 09:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I have posted a RfC on the Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses talk page. It would be appreciated if you could bring some common sense to the table. BenC7 10:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mantanmoreland Note

Thanks! I intend to ignore it, even though Mantanmoreland has been more than a bit troublesome to me. --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Nom

Is there a discussion page for this kind of article nom? Voting? A way to contest a fail if it is done by a significant contributor? Look at the failed FA nom if you wonder why I ask.

Bob--CTSWyneken(talk) 19:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This looked like fun, so I reviewed the article Hebrew language. Would you see if I did everything I was supposed to to promote the thing? --CTSWyneken(talk) 21:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... guess I'll have to read that thingie a little more carefully. ;-) Did I get the mechanics right? Someone may want to nominate me again some day for admin and I need some community projects beyond welcome wagon... 8-) --CTSWyneken(talk) 01:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
So, would we say this listing, Charlemagne is a bit sparse on references? What I'm trying to get a bead on is where the line is. If this were a journal article, or a college paper, I'd bounce it. On the other hand, most encyclopedias do not reference their sources at all, simply listing the bibliography. I need to find my comfort zone on these. I could see, for example, saying this one is good, solid writing (I've yet to see anything "compelling" here or in any encyclopedia! 8-) ), good coverages, links, images and some bib. It has cats and is of reasonable length. On the other hand, some red links, a cite needed tag or two, etc. I'd be inclined to say "nice work" Please reference more thoroughly, establish articles for the red links or remove them. I could see approving them with such a note or not approving them and telling them to fix and resubmit. What do you think? --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll just keep at it. If you start to get complaints, let me know! 8-) I'm beginning to sound like my speech judge self on the talk pages of these articles. I've taken to making comments while not promoting or failing a nom. I think I drove the guy at one page crazy with it. --CTSWyneken(talk) 17:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals with wandering ip addresses

Can we add {{sprotect}} to articles that are being heavily vandalised by anon vandals? Do we just put it at the top of the page somewhere? rossnixon 02:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well he isn't vandalising his own user talk page, I guess we should just keep trying to talk to him. Homestarmy 02:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I semi-protected the article. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I have a hunch he doesn't really want to learn to be a good editor. But maybe I'm wrong.... :-) Antandrus (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity Link

I don't understand the objections to this link. I have nothing to do whatsoever with PBS. It is a free website, it discusses a frontline series done over christianity (4 tapes long) in 1998. Please relook.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

if you click on one of the faces it will display several links

I have tried to find a more worthy "entry" page but that is the only one they provide. I believe the navigator is supposed to click on the faces.

If you are to click on some of the links..

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/

For example, you have access to all of the articles explaining his life, existance, etc.

I have not encountered a single pay advertisement. The website is for those to share the information from the broadcast in 1998. PBS is free anyway and it's directly from their website.

I have used their links to cite sources throughout facebook. Most notably http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus#Scholarly_Consensus , the Bishop Irenaeus quote is invaluable, only found from the PBS material.

It is not transcripts. It contains scholary articles written from some of the most informed in the field, it's a WEALTH of information. Reading the articles will unravel many things unknown.

You bring up some good issues and I am concerned with the same things as well. I uncovered the link while doing my own research on Christianity and it provided numerous lectures by scholars about Christian history.

This for instance includes a lecture given by Michael White at Harvard on the controversies surrounding Jesus' tomb. Paul, the earliest writer in the New Testament speaks of no tomb, Jesus simply ascends. The gospel of Mark has Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Salome approach Jesus' tomb to annoint his body, however on they way there they ponder how to roll back the rock covering its enterance. They eventually find out its rolled back already, they enter and a "man" dressed in white tells them Jesus has ascended into heaven.

Matthew however has just Mary and Mary Magdalene visit the tomb, not to annoint the body, because he is the first to insert guards there. This changes the scenario set by the earliest gospel in Mark, and then for Matthew an "angel" comes by and strikes the guards dead, he tells both Marys that jesus has ascended and then they walk into the tomb to check it out for themselves.

Such scholarly incite is imperative for people interested in christianity. I acknowledge that the link you showed me can be seen as "shady" but its goal is simply to give the individual an oppurtunity to buy the old documentary. The navigation is not great, however the website intends for the user to browse through the articles.

Also quite a humorous thing is Bishop Iraenous of 170AD France, he led the movement to classify all Gospels but Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as Gnostic because there were "four corners to the universe and four principle winds". He also thought they were written by Jesus' original disciples and this is not the case as well.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/emergence.html

I would very much like if you could help me find a better "entry" page. I do not want others to be turned off by their offer to sell their documentary however I know of no other link that has access to all of their educational articles.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/

If you go to the above and click 'an overview of the four gospels', they might be able to inform you of certain things.

The first gospel, the gospel of Mark, was revolutionary. I was just readng from this earlier and I'll pull the quote,

Whether as a reponse to the Jewish War (66-70) or to the deaths of the earliest followrs of Jesus, or to the need of a definitive version of Jesus' life, or to objectionable theological trends, the author of the Gospel of Mark recast traditional materials into a dramatic narrative climaxing in Jesus' death. It is not clear precisely what kind of book the author set out to compose, insofar as no document written prior to Mark exactly conforms with its literary properties. Its themes of travel, conflict with supernatural foes, suffering, and secrecy resonate with Homer's Odyssey and Greek romantic novels. Its focus on the character, identity, and death of a single individual reminds one of ancient biographies. It's dialogues, tragic outcome, and puculiar ending call to mind Greek drama. Some have suggested that the author created a new, mixed genre for narrating the life and death of Jesus.

Dennis R MacDonald, Early Christian Literature (Found in Oxford study bible referring the Gospel of Mark )

It seems he was simply taking the historical life of Jesus and making it a theological story, one where he played the role of a Messiah. His gospel would be the gospel that Matthew (the most frequently referenced gospel in antiquity) and luke pulled from. They also used some source Q that is now lost. Some speculate its the Gospel of Thomas.

The "it seems that the Gospels are increadibly embellished myths" is simply an inference to literary parallels. The gospels are their own literary work, they pull from other works. The book of Revelation even calls Hell 'Hades', a reference to the ancient greek Olympian God (named Hades).

It may seem 'mean' I suppose, but most facts that infer new viewpoints must discredit others. The information is still objective.

I very much love biblical scholarship because it requires people to suspend their own prophetic views. I had one guy claim David was 'right' to kill Uria and David committing adultery was perfectly fine, the guy was jewish, if he actually thought it was 'right' then he would be disagreeing with his own version of scripture and David's everlasting monarchy wouldn't have fallen.

I think it's imperative to leave links like the one posted. It is "multiple views" but they are only multiple because they conflict with scripture, the origins of which are worthy of their own study. 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slim Virgin Failed the Martin Luther Good Article Nom

Just to let you know that Slim Virgin, who is actively involved in the editing of Martin Luther has failed the nom without comment on the talk page, removing all trace of the nom. This is something like I expected would happen. Thanks for trying, anyway. --CTSWyneken(talk) 02:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What bothers me is that she didn't follow any of the rules. I have no investment in the promotion of the article to any status, although it would be nice. She shouldn't be reviewing an article she's written, rewritten and insisted we document to death. (how about not saying Jesus Christ in an article unless it's in quotes or that Luther believed in salvation by grace without a cite. *roll eyes*
Anyway, I'd love to have an honest review for the suggestions. My aim with this and other articles is to have something that my students can cite without getting a lecture from me about not trusting wikipedia. Good evals help it.
Oh, I hope you don't mind my going active in the GA process... --CTSWyneken(talk) 03:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warsaw Radio Mast

I have verified all information and it seems to be correct. The external links seem to be good sources.
If you have good faith, you can always remove it from the good article list on Wikipedia. --GoOdCoNtEnT 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You are not. You are just trying to be a good Wikipedian. Please double check the other article I made a good article, Ace Books. --GoOdCoNtEnT 02:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I discussed the reasons for which I failed articles on their talk pages though. I'll talk in the future. --GoOdCoNtEnT 02:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Where do I write about it? --GoOdCoNtEnT 03:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedro del Valle

Would you review this one? I need to recuse, since I waded in to help convert old reference style to the new, inline variety. Thanks! Bob--CTSWyneken(talk) 23:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it just seems big! All that data was there, I just untied the footnotes. 8-) --CTSWyneken(talk) 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies

Regarding the nomination for GA on the above page, you said: "I've put the GA nomination on hold, because the introduction is one sentence long, I really don't think that summarizes an article of this size very well as per WP:LEAD, it will need to be expanded out to summarize the article, preferably in one or two paragraphs detailing the most important stuff or something." I ask that you re-evaluate the lead, as I have changed it in heed with your suggestions. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 04:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LEAD problems with GA noms

Hey there. I've added to the short LEAD for the Diego Maradona article and have broken up the previously long LEAD for the Rallying article. Do you fancy taking another look? Regards SeanMack 04:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Luther GA Nom Comments

The Martin Luther article has been nominated for Good Article status. A reviewer dropped by and said that everything but the Luther and Antisemitism section qualified. Unser Mantanmoreland said, in effect, the section was just fine but the restof the article was hagiographic. While I intend to leave the issue well enough alone, I thought you might be interested in helping see if he will offer us some suggestions. (or offering your own, for that matter).--CTSWyneken(talk) 15:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Capitalism from GA status

Can you direct me to the page where it was decided that Capitalism no longer met the criteria for a Good Article...I see the template was change by you on the article talk page here. Thanks!--MONGO 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay thanks for that.--MONGO 17:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sprotecting an article under anon attack

I'm going to be away for a little bit so I thought sprotecting an article under anon attack is justified. I clicked Save before I wrote that I'm reverting to the last ver. by Ian Pitchford. I'd appreciate if more people watch and revert POV & OR edits. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CKB, Christwiki

How have you been? Haven't seen you around CKB (wikia) lately, and ChristWiki (relately) seems dead. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There were 16 CKB users active in August. ChristWiki is a ghosttown. I noticed that CarmPedia is down. This is evangelism? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 23:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply from Ferg

I've posted a reply to your note on my user page: User_talk:StephenFerg I hope that is the proper technique for replying. If not, let me know. I'm a relative Wikipedia newbie, and still learning. (August 29, 2006 10pm EST) -- Steve Ferg

[edit] Advice on Martin Luther and Theology of Martin Luther

Would you take a look at the current discussion and advise if you think I'm crazy? --CTSWyneken(talk) 00:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Nogus

[edit] Abraham a polygamist?

A couple of editors are of the opinion that Abraham was a Polygamist, so they have added Cat:Polygamist. See talk:Abraham I have doubts as to the validity of this classification. I think this was more a 'rent-a-womb' scheme than a marriage to Hagar. Do you have an opinion? I wonder if this is a LDS / Mormon attempt to add respectability to Polygamy? rossnixon 05:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting Biblical

{{Portal:Bible/Featured chapter/Template}}. Thought you might be interested.

[edit] come take a look

hey homestarm --

after being blocked and seeing 'paradoxtom' be blocked and get very upset about it, i decided to put together some suggestions for changing 3RR. come take a look at my policy proposal changes at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Proposed_policy_changes

i think they could prevent a good portion of the conflict that comes with 3RR. comments are welcome.

Justforasecond 16:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
Awarded to Homestarmy for tireless work on Good Article Candidates and Good Article Review. Your dedication and contributions help to make Wikipedia a better project. Thank you.

As I was looking at the Good Article Review archives and other Good Articles, I kept seeing your name everywhere :P I figure such work deserves recognition and I wanted to thank you for all that you've done. Agne 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Homestarmy 18:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane John (2006) refs

They've all been fixed. The NHC recently changed the URLs to all their archived stuff for this year. BTW, looking at your userpage, I think NationStates players need our own userbox! Heh. – Chacor 13:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Reviewing

Thanks for the comment. I'm am not 100% sure what is being asked though. Do you want me to just list the criteria and put passes next to each one? I do try to check everything and my standards are close to those that have been discussed on Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates recently. I will be happy to comply with any new standards the project sets but there isn't much to say when it meets everything, unlike one that fails where I do always leave specific criticism. I see that the instructions now ask one to leave a comment when passing an article. That must have been added since the last time I looked at them closely. Eluchil404 15:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA refs

By what process did inline citations become a requirement for GA? I've seen (and participated in) discussions on the criteria page and the candidates page, but there's no consensus as far as I can see. I certainly don't think you should be delisting articles based on that, when the change is less than a day old. Kafziel 17:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review of Creation-Evolution controversy(somewhat offtopic remarks)

You realize how much your statement would annoy the IDers? JoshuaZ 01:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: the reason it would annoy IDers is that your statement depicted ID and creationism as interchangeable. "the same attitude all of the creationism-related articles have, `There is no dispute about evolution, and ID'ers are basically lying about this." It was, in any event, meant as a possibly humorous sidenote. JoshuaZ 05:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snow-white Miriam article

There's currently a discussion going on in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow-white Miriam about whether to delete this article. You might want to present your views there. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Kennedy

Thanks for taking that out. I never noticed it was in there but it is almost certainly false. Some really extreme evangelicals in fact accuse Kennedy of being too eucemincal with the Roman Catholics. See for example [2]. JoshuaZ 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It most certainly would count. We might in practice have slightly more leeway because Kennedy has compatriots and colleagues who have made comments pretty close to those but I would see it as a definite violation of WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 02:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Gonzalez

I have read the article 2 times. Then afterward, went out to read both of what sounded like reliable sources (and were) and found that all the material that was found in the article pertained to both references in question. From this, I added the inline citation so you wouldn't have to re-review the article pertaining to the 2b criteria and so I assessed the article as having enough of everything. If, on the contrary, you still think some unsourced statements should be cited, feel free to discuss them, I will father the article for that matter only.

We can now use this article to show people that even if there aren't many references and really very few inline citations the article can still be called a good article. Lincher 01:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GAAuto error?

It seems to of removed a Typhoon and Black Marsh, and I think those are both still GA's :/. Homestarmy 00:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Homestarmy,
Black Marsh still appears to be listed under the "Fictional sites" category. It was removed from the recently added list but I don't think it was ever removed from the "Fictional sites" category.
Cedars 02:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation headache

I hope you now see the problem I was trying to illustrate. User:Agne27 was a dream compared to what's going on now. We have a user going on the rampage basically telling us that every article I contribute to is "noncompliant". This citation madness needs to stop! Thanks for your help in pointing out that delisting guidelines say a review needs to be done. --ScienceApologist 04:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

Thanks for your reply. My point was that in all due respect I thought Film maker was wrong to delete my nomination, my GA Nominee tag, and to put up a Former GA Canidate in its place vs. simply leaving a "disagree" apply on the nomination page. Yet, if all of those things are an automatic thing when one posts a "disagree" then I understand. Yet, I understand your point too I think that one can post replys quickly. If I'm confusing what you said I'm sorry. Thanks again. DavidWJohnson 22:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter

I agree with your GA failings. Altough it would be nice if you wouldn't change the top counter and let the bot do it as it creates an extra edit, messes the count, and because your the only one who really does it. I mean no harm and if you like doing it, you can continue. :) Lincher 00:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical Inerrency

That was an unusal scripture to use (John 10:34-36, I think that is what you meant). Christ was quoting Psalms 82:1, 6, which reads:

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

This is beside the point, but a LDS would use this scripture in other ways. For example, Psalms states that God is standing in the congregation of the mighty, or among the gods. Who are gods? Verse 6, the one Jesus was quoting, states plainly that at least some of the ones he was talking about were children of the most High, which are called gods.

It is important to recognize that there is one God or Godhead and that gods are not the equivalent of God. My purpose in pointing this out is that I thought it was an interesting choice of scripture. These are some of the basic scriptures that we use to demonstrate that we are children of the most High and can become gods. Personally, I still don't care for the statement, "we can become gods". It always seems to stick in my craw when I say it. It is beyond my comprehension that God would extend this gift to me. Jesus is recorded in the Book of Revelations 3:21 as saying, "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." What a glorious promise and yet it is also beyond my understanding. Mormons don't create their theology, but everything we believe, or the vast majority, is found within the Bible. The Book of Mormon teaches very few unique teachings; it mainly is a second witness to jew and gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

I appreciate your participation on WIKI. I can be a bit abrasive and hope that we can continue to improve WIKI articles that are centered on Jesus Christ. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it might of been a bit too easy to simply quote that verse and hope it stuck heh. I sort of guessed an LDS would probably take the scripture the other way, I thought about using the "All scripture is good for teaching" one instead, but I figured since a quick check on google made the other one seem more cut and dry i'd try it. You know, it seems to me that the situation could just be dodged by simply saying that the four points are as the author mentioned there sees them, for instance, it could say "These four points the author sees...", and then the book would reference the statements, instead of somebody having to go and prove the points one by one. However, i've got some homework to do in Java to do, so I won't be able to respond thoroughly tonight, or finish what I was getting myself into concerning the Jesus article. (The thing is, I didn't go and find that cite, I just decided i'd try to defend it when Roland came, but i'll explain myself later). Homestarmy 01:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
If I may jump in here, I would also be concerned that the use of verses such as that in the article may constitute WP:OR if we don't have citations to other people using the verses in that way. JoshuaZ 01:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
JoshuaZ, you speak wisely; as it stands it would be OR. It would be much better to quote a thologian who uses the/a scripture to prove the points being made. However, I think Homestar can rephrase the statement and attribute it to the author who initially made the points.
I would appreciate hearing your views of those scriptures and how they are interpreted regarding mankind being the children of the most High and gods. Just curious how others interpret them. Storm Rider (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, now that I have time to type, I was actually trying to quote John 10:35, I just included 34 and 36 so people would see the context :/. I'm fairly certain that that Psalm doesn't say anything about inerrancy of scripture....but anyway, my first reaction when you asked for a citation was to quote the verse about how all scripture is good for teaching, but I figured I might as well google and see if I could find a better example, and what better an example than a proclamation by Christ that Scripture cannot be broken? But anyway, I think you mean Psalm 82:6, and the word "gods" is in quotations right there, (in the NIV anyway) so I get the feeling it doesn't mean "gods" in the sense of actually, you know, gods. Oh, and you removed the bible verse in the inerrancy article and said that the reference was inside the person's works, does the sentence still need to be reworded or what? Homestarmy 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read the book cited, but it seems to me that a scripture would not be needed because the book is cited. I suppose that if one wished to be perfectly accurate, one could acutally cite the page numbers in the book where each point is made. If you have the book and can quote the page number, it might completely remove all potential conflict with other editors.
You are correct, Psalms does not talk about scripture inerrancy. Christ was quoting Psalms 82 in John 10:34 when he stated Ye are gods. In the NIV it states, "Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'." The NIV does put the Psalm verse gods in quotes, but not the verse in John. Interesting. I tried to find a commentary from Protestant and/or Catholic perspectives, but was not successful. They don't seem to address the "Ye are gods" phrase at all; it was as if the statement had not meaning or not worthy of comment. Odd. If you find anything regarding this verse on your end, I would be curious. Storm Rider (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Well i've never much heard of this verse before until now, I take it the LDS church has made some extensive commentary on it then? Homestarmy 13:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not surprised that you have not heard of it. It seems to not be a verse of interest to many Christian churches; however, it is interesting. There are several others that are similar. No significant commentary, but it is understood to be a literal statement.
The concept of Theosis within Mormonism is seen as blasphemey by other Christians. We believe that the prophets and Christ taught that we are children of God. He referred to us as gods, but we do not believe this is the equivalent of the Father. An analogy would be just as children grow up to be adults, so the purpose of mortality for God's children to return to Him. The afterlife is an active existence filled with purpose; not just standing around singing praises for eternity. Though I am uncomfortable with the statement, "becoming gods", I understand its meaning. We will become co-inheritors with Jesus Christ. Father will direct our activity for the rest of eternity and He will always be our God.
If you do run into some commentary, I would appreciate hearing about it. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, i'm having trouble understanding this view, so through inheriting with Jesus Christ, do you say that you turn into gods, but not into gods which are equal in authority and power to God? How does that work out with Mark 12:32, where Jesus sees that one of the teachers of the law answered wisely when he said that "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him."? It doesn't seem like he's referring to one God to worship either, just simply that there is only one God. And also, why does it have to be literal just because it isn't written in quotes when Jesus says it, what about when it does have quotes in Psalms? Finally, I gotta tell ya, to a person who watches Kids Next Door, your second to last sentence would be very creepy, because of this guy :D Homestarmy 14:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Homestar, I must say that I haven't a clue about the cartoon you referenced or the character cited. I must be showing my age. A few points: I would not get too hung up on punctuation; the punctuation you are referring did not exist in the known texts. They are a fabrication of different translations; thus the NIV's use of quotes where the KJV does not have any. Second, in reality LDS don't dwell too much on this concept of godhood. It is sensationalized by those critical of the church; however, we see the purpose of creation fulfilled in the teaching of eternal progression. I think you find many verses in the scriptures that discusses plurality of gods; just do a search. There is one Godhead and one Heavenly Father. He will always be our Heavenly Father throughout eternity. Getting back to my analogy, a child is never the equal of his parents; it is even more so with God. This term "god" has no relationship to God. Jesus said we would be co-inheritors with Him. He is the one who said we were gods and children of God. What does co-inheritor mean to you? I have a difficult time not taking Him at His word. The second to last sentence you thought was creepy was "We will become co-inheritors with Jesus Christ." Do you want a reference for it in the Bible? Storm Rider (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Storm, its just when most people refer to God they say, you know, God, or at least "The Father", and just saying Father like that sounded really creepy because of that show (And because I don't remember anyone saying it alone like that, even though the Wikipedia article Father does). I mean he's the main evil guy in the show, and all the people always refer to him as "Father"....ahem, but anyway, the puncuation probably didn't exist, but I suspect that there was an equivalent that led the NIV editor people to put them there. However, dodging the issue of the KJV vs. modern translations, (Mostly because I've never argued over it before, and the last time I did that with someone, I ended up with this) the Old Testament contains numerous references to different "gods", but it never once refers to them as actual, real gods. For instance, when Israel is constantly fighting different people, there are references where other pagan tribes refer to numerous gods of this and that, and references to "Their (Israel's) God being the most powerful", but the Bible never actually supports these people's perspectives, while from their perspective there were many Gods, from the Bible's, there is only one. (And once again, remember Mark 12:32....) For instance, if we were talking about Greek Mythology, we might say that there were many gods of the Greek myths, but we wouldn't be saying that these gods were actually real, rather, we would be referring to the concepts which supposedly referred to the gods of the ancient Greeks. And, in this way, I don't see how either the Psalm or Jesus's quote of it has to mean actually existing gods. Homestarmy 18:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM

This is a message for the one who deleted the link African Holocaust. I dont care if you think it is spamming the facts are this site deals with slavery. If Steven Hawkins contributed to "Black Holes" would you delete it. You can only delete a link for a valid reason. the site deals with slavery in debt, hence it is relevant. the film on slavery is a film on slavery. all of these things are facts, so there is zero reason to remove the link. Films on slavery--then it is 500 Years Later isnt it a film on Slavery? so leave it alone----Halaqah 15:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Halaqah 15:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, "this one" has a username. Second of all, the only things i've deleted of yours was the verse from Job which said manservants and maidservants, thusly not being the same as "the slave", and thusly not meaning what you said it meant. If you've been spamming this link across different user pages, you might run into trouble. Homestarmy 15:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

I'm going to remove your message from my talk page, as I assume it wasn't meant for me and is likely to confuse things in this already confused conversation. Cheers Yomanganitalk 15:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, ok. Do you have any idea yet what he's talking about?Homestarmy 15:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I do now...I've replied on his talk page if you want to see what was going on. Yomanganitalk 15:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus article red link

Just so you know, the red link you fixed over at Jesus was due to this recent AfD. Peyna 01:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archie

Thanks - it's good to know he's ok. Sophia 17:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice edit summary for December 25!

I would have reverted that too if I'd seen it...the note about "Birth of Jesus" that you reinstated is there to try to slow down the dimwits who insist on adding an entry for year 0 (no such year) or year 1 or whatever for Jesus. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism

You are right that did not have any thing to do with creationism at all.--Seadog.M.S 22:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Werdnabot

About the Werdnabot thing, from what I know it can be used on any talk page. The Esperanza page seems to make good use of it and besides it will hopefully make archiving jobs a little bit easier. In fact if it works well we should try it on other talk pages. However I don't really know much else about it, if you have any other questions you might want to ask Werdna about it. Tarret 01:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA

Hello, i'm a frequent editor of the GA project, and you don't appear to have given a review of this article anywhere. Since there's all those merge tags on the talk page, did it get lost in a history somewhere? The rules for passing articles state that you have to leave at least a comment on the talk page about reviews, specifically: Leave a comment about your reasons for passing the article (with suggestions to improve the article, if you can). on the WP:GAC page under the section concerning passing articles. I'm just checking, because we've had a bit of a problem in the past with people upgrading article status when nobody is looking.....Homestarmy 02:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll leave a review, but I also resent your insinuation. If you check, you'll see I've reviewed many GA articles, failing several--one yesterday too, over the last several months, most before the recent restructuring of the GA project. Rlevse 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fitness Landscape

Hello - I noticed you downgraded the article fitness landscape from "good article". You did not leave any reason why or a list of what you considered must be done to restore it to the status of a good article. Could you do this, because I would like to improve the article if possible. Thanks - PAR 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

On second reading, I see your objections. Please disregard above. PAR 19:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)