User talk:KHM03/Archive 6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is ARCHIVE 6 for my talk page....
1 Dec 05 through 5 Jan 06.
[edit] Thank you
Hi, Thank you for the welcome! I am still trying to learn my way around. I noticed you are connected with the Methodists. John Wesley is one of my facorite authors. Thanks again for the welcome. Your brother in Christ, Jay N. Forrest http://www.jayforrest.net --Jay4rest 02:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the welcome too. Is it a standard template, or just something you send to people who've written on religion?
- Not your brother in Christ, I'm afraid, but happy holidays anyway :) Thomas Ash 22:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for the welcome, thanks for the links, KHMO3. Serfalco 14:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Orthodoxy & Methodism
Hey, Keith.
I've been away on wikiholiday (and will continue to be for an indefinite period), but I checked back in to (A) add a wikiholiday announcement to my userpage, (B) be shocked by Essajay's retirement, and (C) let you know about an upcoming event. I had told you a while back about the Orthodoxy and Wesleyan Spirituality [1] book, but I also wanted to let you know that SVS Press is also preparing a book on Orthodox and Wesleyan Scriptural Understanding and Practice [2], due in a couple of weeks.
Charis soi kai eirene.
JHCC [[User talk:JHCC|(talk)]] 16:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Mindmatrix scam adminship
I have recently been granted greater access to your systems, and can begin the process of salvaging the sensitive information from my politically unstable land, as I promised. Please accept this loonie as a token of faith that I will conduct myself as required to complete our transaction. Thank you for your support. Mindmatrix 20:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Study bibles
I notice you don't list the New Jerusalem Study Edition - I've always found this very useful, so was wondering whether you had any particular opinion on it? Thomas Ash 22:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hi
Would it be at all possible for you to weigh in at Talk:Table of nations#Requested move. Ordinarily I wouldn't bother you about this, but the sudden appearance of 3 editors on the talk page despite nothing happening for a week makes me suspicious that something underhand is going on. --User talk:FDuffy 22:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] help?
KHM03, I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stup of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. When you have time, would you go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation you think necessary? I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, I'd be grateful if you checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. I agree that Judaism and Christianity have a common root, in this issue. But they ended up diverging entirely. For some reason, Christians do not see keeping kosher as the way to love God and the world; for some reason Jews do see it this way. So I think you can start with the similarities, but then explore the divergence. Besides, a Jewish philosopher like Rosenzweig had beautiful things to say about the Jewish notion of love. Surely thee have been Christian theologians who have done the same -- they sould be represented. But I think there is a risk in getting bogged down inthe similarities. Scifintel just made an addition pointing out that Jesus said "Love the Lord your God" and "Love they neighbor" as the two most important commandments. Does he know that Jesus was quoting the Torah? I even referred to this in the Jewish section. I am not objecting to Scifintel adding this to the article; I object to the way he added it without explaining what it really means. By itself it simply means Jesus held a belief common to most Jews at that time. So what? Curely there is much more to say about how these statements by Jesus were interpreted and used by Christians in ways different from the Rabbis. Can you help inthis regard? Slrubenstein | Talk 05:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] nutopia
this is jimmy-james, we met in the discussion on Nutopia and you said you had never heard of the model, this is a link to her web site.[Nutopia Productions]. its just your basic site for a modle, but its there for you to see. plese go to my user page and fallow to link to My photo page i hve a pictuer of her from a comic con there i meet her. jimmy-james
j
[edit] morality
if you think that isn't neutral go and add the template to Eutheism, dystheism, and maltheism from which I copied the text verbatim. Clinkophonist 00:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- It seems to me that that article is fine; taking a piece of it out of context with a "Bible" title is another matter...NPOV. KHM03 00:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Taking the large section marked "dystheism in the bible" and adding it to an article about morality in the bible under the heading "dystheism" is NOT taking a piece of it out of context. Clinkophonist 01:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear KHM, I want to point you to the articles on Criticism of the Bible and Science and the Bible, as well as certain recent edits on Criticism of Christianity. Cheers, Str1977 20:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Woohoo!
Hey KHM03/Archive 6! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was (57/4/3), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, have a question, or just want to chat (or if I get out of line!), please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D
[edit] My FRA
Thank you for your support. I won't forget it.Gator (talk)
[edit] Why Did You Send a Post to Me?
Dear Brother, I am a Christian. I have just written a book about the life and death of Jesus. I noticed recently that Wikipedia is embroiled in several "arguments" about postings...notably attacks on others plus false information. One example would be the pages on Muhammed, obviously maintained by Muslims. When others have attempted to make corrections, or present alternate views, they are blocked. Yet the pages on Christianity actually cast doubt on the histrocity of Jesus and the Bible. This does not seem fair.
I realized my new research would be very helpful to others in these discussions, so I have been reading all links about Jesus and the Bible..
My book was only just released (amazon.com) two weeks ago. I am not trying to post 'commercial' links. Rather, I am trying to post sources of information that can be an excellent and new addition to Bibliographies and references, just as other books and links appear. If I am doing this wrong, or you think I am promoting commercialism (which is not my intention) please advise me how to procede.I, like millions of others, enjoy Wikepedia and want to a healthy and respected and valuable web site here. Thank You and best wishes, Suzanne Olsson
[edit] Thanks for the welcome.
Good to see another diehard Steelers fan. Just a quick question - one time while browsing I found a page that listed the various userboxes, and I can't find it by searching. Any help? Thanks again. --Itamae 21:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
One more question - how do I align things to the right? I tried the HTML tag but it didn't work, and I can find it on the "editing a page" page. --Itamae 21:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Thank you for your welcome; an introduction
Hello, KHMO3:
Thank you for your welcome message. I've been an anonymous contributor to Wikipedia for several months but finially decided to go ahead and get myself an id. I'm interested in contributing to the following sections and acknowledge that I have a great deal to learn when it comes to categorization and other encyclopedic-type matters:
- Web Development
- Religion, especially women in religion, history of the early church, Catholicism, St. Francis of Assisi, paganism, and related topics
- English literature
- Geographical information about Boston, Massachusetts and outlying areas
Any suggestions or help you can give are appreciated.
Okelle 21:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism of Christianity
This article is a mess. Where does one begin? Logophile 13:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
See my comments on the talk page. Thanks for the heads-up. JHCC (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Your messages on my page
Hi KHM03, good to hear from you. With regard to your question, I was wiki-stalked for a while in September, with messages from anonymous IP addresses (usually traced to open proxies) and from user accounts that were created specially to target me. They all basically had the same message – that someone was going to find out my home address and harm me. Also, a blog about me was created, giving my work address and inviting people to send me anthrax or a letter bomb. The creator of the blog then left a message on my talk page, giving me the URL of the blog, and pretending that he/she had stumbled across it by chance, and had found my Wikipedia page through doing a Google search for my name, and wanted to warn me. It was dealt with very promptly and efficiently by the administrators here, but it went on for several weeks, and my mother was a bit upset about it, so I decided that it would be better to be a little more private. I know the new name is a bit pompous, but I had to choose something!
With regard to the article you mentioned, it seems to have been taken from the user page of markyjanet (talk · contribs). (I clicked on one of the images on the article, and saw from the image page that it was on that user page, so I had a look.) I seem to remember that user posting to the talk page of Criticisms of Christianity a few months ago. Anyway, I've added the new article to my watchlist, and will have a look at it. I appreciate all the work you do here, and in particular your courtesy towards your opponents, and only wish that I had time to help you more. Regards, AnnH (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Notice from your friendly neighborhood spell-checker
Hey, Keith, you need to be a little more careful about what you type. Some of your comments on User_talk:Clinkophonist say "NPOV" when you mean "POV" (for example, "Your recent edit(s) were either a test or outright NPOV vandalism"). Might want to go back and copyedit. JHCC (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] RE: Christianity, tolerance, and equality
Got your note and read the article. Frankly, I'm not quite sure at this point what is the best way to proceed. One way would be a separate article. Any ideas as to how to approach that would be welcome. In the meantime, I guess we can just chip away (point/counterpoint?) at the article itself. Obviously, as it stands now, it is definitely one-sided, to say the least. Have you sought help from others? --Midnite Critic 20:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- After I wrote the above, I noted that others are involved. That is good. What other such articles has this dude/dudette written?--Midnite Critic 21:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Christianity - featured status questionable
Since you happen to be one of the people who worked on this article, I should inform you (if you haven't noticed already) that the article is currently a candidate for featured article removal. One major complaint is the writing, which I happen to agree with in several sections (notably the history section). I would appreciate your help in trying to address as many of the issues as possible. Pentawing 01:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Since you said that the article is in a state of constant flux, I don't believe that it could remain featured in the current state it is in. Nevertheless, I will continue to think of ways to clean up the article, though to what extent I don't know. Pentawing 02:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Spam message at User talk:JoeMystical
Don't tell me what to do. I can put a link in the article if I wish. It's an interesting essay. JoeMystical 02:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
It's not my "own website." I have absolutely no association with that website. I will continue to insert the link whenever I feel like it. JoeMystical 02:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Save it. I'm well aware of our policies. JoeMystical 02:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] My 3RR comment wasn't for you!
Hi, if you look at the History, it is Clinkphonist who has reverted to his badly-spelled version four times in the last 24 hours... I didn't mean to suggest it was you... I count 4 reverts of his, two against me and two against you, the question is, will he be called on it, or get away with it... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Jesus
I noticed you removed a link I posted on the Jesus page; it is called "Jesus, a historical reconstruction". First let me tell you I spent seven years developing this website.
It is:
- not a spam
- not commercial in any way, not trying to sell anything
- low-key concerning the author, therefore not self-promotional
- presented only as A reconstruction
- fully researched and utterly documented
- the size of a small book
- covering many related topics affecting our understanding of Jesus
- posted on about 20 websites, some Christian, others not
- strictly about Jesus, the one credited to start Christianity
- under "historical Jesus", on the top 10 on Yahoo! and Google for years
- without hate against anyone
- hotly recommended among some of my readers (see below), including a few scholars (from different sides)
- offering a different approach, between "historic" and fully fictional earthly Jesus
Here is the link of the front page: judge for yourself: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html
I also noted on the link list a posted website called the "Jesus puzzle", which is highly controversial, and against the existence of Jesus. It is strongly promotional towards the author, who uses it to sell his own book (I do not). Another link "Overview of the Life of Jesus' advertises book for sales (I do not) and carries Google ads (I do not). Another website which sell stuff is "Complete Sayings of Jesus Christ" (I do not). Several other sites promote a religious faith (I do not). So I am very perplexed about your standard of rejection or acceptance.
Now here are excerpts of comments from my readers (complete texts in "my best review" and "... readers' comments" pages)
"Congratulations! ... easily the best documented & most objective piece of Jesus research that I have found on the internet in almost a year of surfing. ... independent evaluation of the historical evidence that you demonstrate so well. ... such historical clarity ..."
"I really appreciate your efforts to your homepage. It's great and informative."
"I am fascinated and impressed ... This is a fantastic effort."
"You have done a very thorough job researching your material."
"You are to be commended on your extensive study of these matters."
"I have just stumbled across your work, and have spent a few hours reading it. Most impressive!"
"I was researching some information ... and sifted through 10 or 20 documents before finding yours. The others were not helpful in the slightest, and your site was clearly and concisely organized and had the information I needed."
"I have visited your website on the historical reconstruction of Jesus and I have found it very interesting. You have done an excellent work on it ... Your website has helped me understand a great deal of Jesus and life of early Christians."
"Your work is impressive, and valuable to those like myself ... but have immense difficulty accepting all the add-ons ... Again, thanks for your work, and for sharing it with others who care to explore the truth of religious matters."
"This is where your rational approach is most helpful ... by using historical research and factual information. It really takes a careful eye to spot these things, some of which are buried under layers of "over-familiarity". This is not a criticism, rather more a compliment, but I do want to say that your site is demanding careful attention."
"Good Work. I have been reading your account of the life of Jesus, and I find it very insightful."
"I have just finished reading Jesus a historical reconstruction ... What I found in your online book is something very believable ... Thank you very much for your dedication to these matters."
"You have an excellent site. It's obvious you have put a lot of work/thought/effort into its construction."
"Bernard D. Muller provides a beautifully presented picture of the historical Jesus ... he brings to the table, mostly, a lot of common sense. It's a deep site, with a lot to think about and ponder over. Highly recommended ..."
"Your history of Jesus is fascinating! Very thorough and impressive. I was just surfing through the net and came upon your site, and I must say, I spent a lot of time going through everything you wrote ... Again, congratulations on your work!"
"The author clearly writes with a great deal of knowledge ... Furthermore, Bernard does not break any academic rules ... The amount of valuable resources available at the site is exceptional and should not be ignored ... this website should not be overlooked in any study on Jesus."
"I recently found your site and I am very impressed, you did a lot of work! I never read about the events at Cesarea before and I can see how they could inspire John the Baptist and Jesus to do what they did. ... I find your reconstruction very believable ..."
"... the eloquent cases you make for a later (and real) 'Q', 'Thomas' and the like have given me pause over taking John Crossan's opinions as the last word ... I really think you are closer to disentangling the NT mess than most."
"I just read your website about "The epistles of Ignatius: are they all forgeries?". I was absolutely impressed. Zwingende Argumente! Great work! Will this be published in a "Fachzeitschrift"? ... I appreciate good scholarship - as you call it: "highly inquisitive" ..."
"... what I found most refreshing about your work is its objectivity and impartiality. I've been searching for some time for someone who could help fill in the gaps and mostly have found Jesus bashers full of the same sort of hate and prejudice I see in the world religions. These people are no better than those they criticize. Thank you for bringing me closer to the truth without inciting bad emotions. And thank you for providing such a gold mine of information. Your site is at the top of my bookmarks! ... Keep up the good work."
"Here he does a good job of logically reconstructing the life and ministry of Jesus. It's a fascinating read whether you are a Christian or non-believer."
Best regards, Bernard
[edit] Thanks for the welcome
Hi KHM03,
Thanks very much for the welcome, and for pointing out some helpful resources to me. I look forward to talking with you in the future.
CA geologist 01:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] My RFA
[edit] link on Jesus page
Hello, I cannot believe my website "Jesus, a historical reconstruction" is turned down. It is certainly more researched, more objective than most of the links of the Jesus page. I have two opponents (see talk:Jesus for details), one saying somebody else other than me should implement the post (that's OK, that can be done, but the rule is rather naive). The other, who is truly anonymous, does not want to have a "link farm" and always takes me out, whenever he/she has the chance. But recently two new posts appeared and no deletion. I feel unjustifiably picked on and my opinion of wikipedia is very low at this time. What do you recommend? Thanks, Bernard
[edit] Comics Collaboration of the Month
Hello KHM03/Archive 6. Superhero, the article you supported is now Comics Collaboration of the Month. Please improve it in any way you see fit to bring it up to featured article standard. Thank you in advance, --Jamdav86 16:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC).
[edit] My RFA
Hey KHM03! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was an unanimous (45/0/0), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, or have a question, please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear KHM03,
First, I want to thank you, OwenX and Johann Wolfgang for your and their help and appreciation for my work. However, my anonymous opponent, 64.12.116.70, twice within 24 hours, again took off the posting without explanation. I looked into his files and learned:
a) His main interest on wikipedia is SpongeBob.
b) He has been accused many times of vandalism, including into the Jesus page (through outrageous insertions: see the evidence for yourself).
c) He has been threatened repeatedly to be blocked.
I sent him a message: "To anonymous, Stop taking off the link to my website. Your position cannot be defended, because you allow the posting of new websites and you do not delete the existing ones, except mine. Why mine, and mine only? Explain yourself and be specific."
See a more complete message on talk:Jesus.
Best regards, (Mullerb 05:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC))
[edit] Madeira School
The correct designation is "The Madeira School," not "Madeira School" Two of my daughters attended that school
[edit] Etiquette question from "N00b"
Firstly, thank you for the welcome, I appreciate it. I am attempting not to get bitten, and thus far have succeeded. My difficulty is that an article I'm interested in working on, Dido and Aeneas, has an extremely long and poorly written section recounting the entire Aeneid, when there is already an article on the Aeneid. I would like to delete this entire section, perhaps replacing it with a short section on how the opera varies from the Aeneid. I've posted on the article's talk page, but no one has responded. I know I'm supposed to Be Bold, but I don't want to get rid of someone's hard work without due process, but I don't want to put it up for articles for deletion or anything. The person who's done most of it is anonymous. What is appropriate in this situation? Thank you for any guidance you can give. Makemi 05:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merry Christmas
You too, my brother. JHCC (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merry Christmas
Thank you for the Christmas greeting. Merry Christmas to you and to all of your loved ones. Logophile 22:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Happy Holidays
Thank you very much - I wish you a very merry Christmas and a healthy and prosperous new year, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas to you, my friend, and a most blessed New Year. --Midnite Critic 00:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
And from me too. Thanks, KHM03 for your kind greetings on my talk page, and may you have a wonderful Christmas! Blessings, AnnH (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
And a Merry Christmas to you and yours from the Old Drone, and God Bless in the New Year! Pollinator 03:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merry Christmas!!
[edit] Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas! May the grace of God be with you always. Wesley 04:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
And from me too: A very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Str1977 11:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, and Merry Christmas (or at least, Happy Boxing Day) to you as well. Guettarda 16:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Izehar's RfA
Hi KHM03,
I would like to thank you for your kind support on my RfA. I'll do my best to be a good administrator. If you need anything or if I ever do something I shouldn't have, please, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Izehar 16:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Mythology
Hi, I just saw your comment at mythology. I wasn't trying to be misleading with my alert at the cat talk page, I should explain that the specific issue is that the article states that the Book of Revelation is "myths" - I didn't notice that it said that about the entire Bible. Maybe you would not agree, but I think so controversial a statement still seems a little un-neutral, because prophecy is not quite the same thing as myth, and anyway wikipedia should not be trying to decide what books are canonical and what are myth... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, did you see where he also redirected Religion and mythology, and trashed the original article, all in the name of "Being bold"? I tell you, "be bold" is the very bane of wikipedia -- since it is used to justify so much of this kind of unilateral abuse against consensus... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Mythology "dispute"...
I responded to your comment on that Talk page. elvenscout742 13:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I've made a lengthy suggestion at Talk:Mythology#Etymology and usage — some analysis and a suggestion. I would appreciate your input. Thank you. JHCC (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Methodist logo on your userpage
Do you realize that putting the Methodist logo on your userpage is a violation of copyright? Check the image description page. —BorgHunter (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the "heads up"...I've changed the image to a "generic" Wesley image. Happy new year...KHM03 01:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Christmas greetings
Thank you for the message, Keith. May the season leave you earnestly awaiting his return ... — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Christmas wishes
Thank you for your kind wishes, and I wish you and your loved ones a Merry Chistmas and Happy New Year as well. Jayjg (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] movies
I happen to lie Fort Apache, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, and also Rio Bravo quite a bit (never liked the Searchers as much as all the critics). I might end up putting the Man Who Shot Liberty Calence on my "soft-spot" list, but what can I say? It just doesn't move me as much as the ones I truly love. I haven't included all the movies I love, but Unforgiven is one of them. As for John versus Ringo - well, you know most people agree with you. But watch the movies, A Hard Day's Night, and Help!. In both movies, the fundamental drama is essentially the same: without Ringo, there would be no Beatles. Happy New Year! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bush a "Fundamentalist Methodist?"
You might be interested in a recent assertion at Talk:George W. Bush. Pollinator 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, I like your nutshell summation...Pollinator 14:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm watching another page that might also interest you - Bob Jones, Sr. One editor made an enormous block addition to his bio, which was a copyvio. I removed it, then warned him. He hasn't responded. Since then, he's added much of it back piecemeal, but either slightly rewritten, or (it looks like) cut and pasted from a very similar biography - but I can't find that one online. I hate to block him, because he hasn't actually reverted, and the material is generally useful information (although poorly written). Jones' school is huge, he's had an enormous impact here in the Carolinas. You can hardly shake a tree anywhere without a graduate or two falling out - but, as you say, you won't find them in Methodist churches. I've done business with quite a few of the grads. -Interesting that Jones came out of Methodism, too. At any rate the article needs quite a bit of work to be up to standards, and his importance deserves a good article. Pollinator 14:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Found another copyvio at Harry Denman and tried to fix it. You might want to look it over. Did you ever meet him? I had the privilige once, of not only hearing him preach, but spending a couple hours with him - a great man. Another one you might want to look at is Annual Conference which I found, that was less than a stub. I amplified it a bit, but I betcha you know much more about church government than I do. Pollinator 06:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hymn
A while ago, an anonymous user added this to the article Hymn:
- The Wesleys often composed hymns while riding between preachments on horseback.
I asked on the talk page if someone with more knowledge could comment on this addition, which strikes me as rather strange. Could you comment on my talk page or on the article talk page? 
Camillus
talk|contribs 02:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
BTW : Belated Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
[edit] Fisheaters
Hi. I added some comments at Wikipedia:Help desk#Further information which I'd like you to see. Thanks, Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Luther as a Revolutionary
Dear Friend: Please discuss this issue on the Martin Luther talk page. It is a particularly sensitive issue for Lutherans who do not consider Luther a revolutionary and the fact that the catagory contains a lot of rebels, communists, etc. does not help. We're also in a bruising battle over Luther's venom against the Jews, and some of our editors are likely to be a bit snippy on the subject. Of course, if you were to help us with this last... --CTSWyneken 14:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! By the way, if you'd like to work with us on the Luther article, we would be glad to have you. A non-Lutheran view would be a helpful NPOV check. By and large, it is a very quiet place (except for Luther and the Jews) We value wikifolk who actually want to work with us. 8-) --CTSWyneken 15:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hogmanay
As you're a proud Scottish-American, I wish you a Happy Hogmanay! Camillustalk 19:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Recent Additions
Dear KHM03, I hope you had a good start into 2006. If you are free, could you have a look into the recent addition to Christianity by "86.137.164.37". Thanks, Str1977 14:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism of Biblical criticism
Some religiously biased users are trying to delete A wife confused for a sister, an article discussing the strikingly similar Abraham&Abimelech (Genesis 20-21), Isaac&Abimelech (Genesis 26), and Pharaoh&Abraham (Genesis 12), incidents where the Abraham/Isaac's wife is confused by Pharaoh/Abimelech for their sister, and a later treaty occurs at Beersheba.
The reason they have given for deletion is "it is entirely based on biblical criticism". I.e. they are trying to have the article deleted because it is based on academic knowledge and not on religiously prejudiced guesswork.
It actually also includes a non-biblical-criticism summary of the passages, and additionally discussion of Midrash views and stances.
The sources are the JewishEncyclopedia article on Beersheba, and Abimelech (section 3), and also minor aspects of the Sarah, Isaac, Abraham, and Rebekah articles; Israel Finkelstein concerning the archaeology of Beersheba; Friedmann, Noth, etc. (e.g. "Who wrote the Bible") for much of the documentary hypothesis portions.
Would you consider voting on the AFD concerning the article? I would like it kept. --User talk:FDuffy 20:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Born Again Christian Link
Please do not remove the link to the Born Again Christian Info site on the [Born-again] Wiki page.
It is NOT spam and highly relevant.
The similar Wiki page [Born-again Christian] has linked to this site for over a year, but was recently removed and visitors redirected to the 'Born Again' page in Wiki.
The site Born Again Christian Info is an authority site packed with highly relevant resources on precisely this topic. It is non commercial, and hosted by a self-financed missionary.
Its addition is essenial to prevent Wiki presenting a biased sectarian view of what being Born again means.
--Abeseed 00:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
There must have been some discussion before the Born-again_Christian Wiki page was removed and redirected to the Born-again Wiki page, but I can't find any. Could you direct me to it please.
Since the original Born-again_Christian page had a link to the authortiy site Born Again Christian Info for over a year, I think it is valid to include this link on the Born-again Wiki page, which has usurped the original.
Please do not remove it, or get a proxy to remove it. I had no part in the construction of either page.
--Abeseed 13:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps it was removed because it is 404? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
There was no 404 with the link before or after it was replaced. Access is fine.
Why has there not been any prior discussion about the removal of the Born-again_Christian Wiki page, and its redirection to the Born_again Wiki page.
The former was more popular, and less influenced by theological and sectarian bias.
Why not reinstate the Born-Again_Christian page and remove the redirection, to give Wiki visitors a more balanced view of what being Born again means?
I repeat, I had no part in the writing of either Wiki page. I think this is time for some sensible, comments and responsible discussion.
--Abeseed 01:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] possible request for comment?
I am inclined to let it slide because I think I am dealing with a nut-case. But do you consider this (the last sentence) an anti-Semitic threat? [3] Slrubenstein | Talk 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] from User:Lengis
You are in violation of enforces a POV as a fact. Please do not do this or you will be banned. Thank you for your consideration. Lengis 04:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Note: Lengis is in violation of WP:3RR and is refusing to work with the community at Jesus. His work has been reverted by several editors; he continue to violate. I gave him a friendly warning, to which he responded with the above nonsense. KHM03 04:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I've blocked him for vandalism and 3RR violation. If he gives you any more problems, let me know. -- Essjay · Talk 00:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] trinity
In the context of the article, trinity is not referred to a proper noun. The reference is to "a trinity" which can be any group of three. Later in the sentence it is inferred that the Chrstian concept is what is being referred to, but grammatically speaking, it should be lowercase. Pepsidrinka 12:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
