User talk:Leadwind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I like to improve leads (wp:lead) and make cross-connections among related articles. Ironically, the lead should both make reading the rest of the article less necessary (because it's such a great summary) and also entice the reader to read the whole article (because the lead highlights what's interesting about the topic).

I used to post under my proper name, but certain editors used that as an opportunity to insult me, so I stopped.

Contents 1 Anglican collaboration of the month 2 Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion 3 Creodonta 4 October 2007 5 please be nice 6 transforming purgatory 7 Tower of Babel 8 snake 9 Lima 10 Egg 11 Purgatory 12 Protestant baptisms 13 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 14 History of the Eucharist 15 etiquette 16 Jesus 17 BE 18 historians 19 LWOP 20 user:Lima 21 RfC User:Lima 22 The adulteress 23 Roman Catholic Church 24 lead 25 John the Baptist 26 Really Old EPMs 27 Computational theory of mind

[edit] Anglican collaboration of the month

The current Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month is Essays and Reviews The next collaboration will be selected on 30 April 2008. (Vote here)

Wassupwestcoast 05:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - |WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 05:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creodonta

It's no problem at all. Now all I need to do is to finish working on some of the creodont pictures.--Mr Fink 03:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to White male, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. Gscshoyru 01:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please be nice

please be nice. Leadwind 02:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm so used to people adding their white-supremacist POV to the article that I overreacted when I saw a new, unsourced section. It's actually not at all bad, it just does need some sourcing for what you say, so I tagged it, (eventually...) rather than reverting it. Sorry about overreacting originally. The template is there, people will see and hopefully add refs -- but see WP:V for why everything in wiki should have them. And again, sorry. Gscshoyru 02:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thanks for being reasonable. At first I thought you were an . . . jerk. Glad to have my expectations contradicted. Leadwind 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I try to be reasonable, and assume good faith, but dealing with vandalism I tend to forget that rule sometimes. It's (I think) my greatest failing here on wiki. So sorry for the inconvenience earlier, and glad I changed your first impressions. (And I was moving it myself, by the way, you didn't have to) Gscshoyru 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] transforming purgatory

You talked about transforming the page. I'm not sure what that means.

Lima put the old version back up. How do we restore the page to your version? Just revert? Leadwind (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say we're probably better off waiting until it's clearer on the talk page that the changes were good ones. I've advertised as both RFC _and_ peer review, so hopefully somebody will show up eventually to help us out. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the above, I don't think my presence is going to be the solution to the article! More people are needed. In answer to your question, I don't see the Dragani question as a particularly important one. The policy statement that I think refers is in WP:V. "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." I'd say that Dragani as an associate prof in religious studies is an established expert on Christianity and in particular on his own brand of Christianity. It would be much better if he had published his interpretation in a peer-reviewed article rather than just on his website. Note that I would in no way accept this as a good source for historical fact, even for saying what the concept of Purgatory was in his own Christian tradition some centuries ago. But for the contemporary beliefs of the church he belongs to, there is a parallel between accepting this as a source, and accepting the website of, say, Greenpeace for the views of Greenpeace. The question of weight is important, though. Purgatory is mainly a concept in Roman Catholicism and while the views of other churches merit discussion they should not take over the article.

With regard to the Virgin Birth article, I'm as lost as you are. My main opinion is that the article is too long. I get completely lost in the discussion of Betulah and Almah. I'm sure that there is an attempt to push a POV but I can't even see what POV. Itsmejudith 12:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tower of Babel

re" "then a cosmopolitan city of many languages ^[1]."

how are you? nice to "meet" you :)

Can you find a page number for this source.. ?? Just the book doesn't help much at all. (also, this almost looks like it's straight quoting out of a history book and then it should have full quotations around the whole thing in order to be proper cited...)

The reason I deleted it is because [of no page number] but really because it's so vague a statement that doesn't add much info to the article. What city is not "a cosmopolitan city of many languages"?

And when is "then"? Certainly he could not have been referring to the time of the building of the Tower? (b/c "then" they all spoke one language...) So is the "then" after the building of the Tower of Babel? Then is it necessary to have this statement in the article if it's after the fact? (i.e. or you could switch the "then" to this: "by the year <such-and-such>, Babylon would become a cosmopolitan city of many languages," or something like that.)

If you have information to clean this statement up, then this wold be useful to have here. otherwise it looks a little sloppy... thanx :) Swisher6 (talk) 12:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

          re: your reply to me.  Fine, its a very general statement, but... what about me changing the "then" to: "later this city would grow into a"... or something like that??  Enjoy your day! Swisher6 (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] snake

Appreciate the help, I'll back out for a while, this is something I'm working on for a project. Thanks for the assistance!--Mike Searson (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That one was downright awful! I added mostly references and templates for the books I'm using today...hadn't tore into the Lead yet...you did a great job!--Mike Searson (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice touches to the lead...I rewrote the venomous part, the provocative theories of Dr Fry, aside...the vast majority of snakes are not venomous. Also, the prey aspect I think is better suited to individual species articles...for example, I can think of 100 species that are small enough to only eat worms, slugs, and centipedes as well as species that eat only fish, eggs, other snakes, etc. Articles on rat snakes, milk snakes, pine snakes, and smaller pythons and rattlesnakes would deserve too have prey in their LEAD, I think when speaking of the almost 3,000 diferent species that "carnivorous" is good enough. I literally type this in a room full of lizards, of which in this case only 6 are insectivores, whereas the rest are vegetarian or omnivores. So I took out that comparison to lizards.--Mike Searson 05:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You weren't that far off...just a bit too specific like I said above. Again, great job and thanks for the help...when writing about animals I revert back to scientist mode so I often need a good wordsmith like yourself helping me out!--Mike Searson (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lima

Lima is an impenetrable functionality for RC obfuscation. He eeliminates sourced matter with impunity. He did his own translation nof a Greek passage and used it in Eucharist for a while. I know nothing about purgatory, but I will help barrage him with notices of his abuse of WP:RS and WP:OR. Eschoir 05:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a copy of 'Understanding the Bible' by Steven Harris? If so, would you review the quoted section from it (p 362) on Dionysos and Tireseas in the Eucharist (Origins) article (footnote 16). I fear it to be all garbled up, but it's not online. This would be great if you could manage it.Eschoir (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Egg

I'd be happy to help. When I'm done with snake, I may try to fix reptile...then help sort out egg(biology). Thanks for keeping me in mind and giving me a heads-up! Nice job on Purgatory by the way...I may be a bit too biased to jump into the religion articles, myself though.--Mike Searson 15:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purgatory

I'll be happy to jump in when I can help, but I'm sort of at a loss about how to resolve the situation. You could try going through the dispute resolution process. I thought the rewrite I did would result in people all coalescing on that solution, but it didn't.

Whatever solution you have, it'll basically involve enough eyeballs getting involved. I'd have hoped the RFC would have done a better job of this, but we didn't get many people. Also, you could appeal to Bishonen for help-- she's an administrator who I look up to and who seems capable of getting things done-- she was good enough to comment on the RFC, and might have suggestions for how to make the changes stick.

Sorry I don't have more to tell ya. Wikipedia's tricky sometime, and the content-disputes can go on for a long time sometime until something happens to form a consensus. I'll help out as far as I can, because I think the Purgatory article needs a lot of help, but I'm not sure what more I can do.

Email me or post to talk if you decide to do a user-conduct RFC or if you post to WP:ANI or anything like that.

--Alecmconroy (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protestant baptisms

Hi, I saw that you'd edited the Purgatory page, came by to check out your user page, and saw that you said that you weren't sure how the Roman Catholics viewed Protestant baptism.

In general, as long as the baptism is done with water (instead of being purely symbolic or using some other liquid), the words "I baptize you" (or "You are baptized" or "Be baptized") "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" are said, and the intent is to baptize as Christians baptize, the Catholic Church considers the baptism to be valid. (So a baptism using "I baptize you in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier" would be considered invalid, and so would be a baptism done with the intent of making someone part of some other religion.) The immediate exception I can think of where a group that considers itself Christian doesn't have its baptisms accepted is the Mormons, because they don't accept the doctrine of the Trinity. Cheyinka (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: your comment on my talk page - yes, you summed it up accurately. Cheyinka (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Stubs Covenant Code Targum Onkelos Council of Philippopolis Council of Tours Chrism Common grace Prayer of Manasseh Catholicos of Armenia Heber Western Christianity Lophophore Peter Gandy Eastern Orthodox view of sin Hexapla Conciliarism Quinisext Council Great Pyramid of Cholula Iacchus Synaxis

Cleanup Book of Zephaniah Book of Ruth Semi-Arianism Merge Research Council Our Lady of Sorrows Scouting in Arkansas Add Sources Deuteronomy Book of Malachi Book of Job Wikify Gazara Great Assembly Council of Nine Expand Maccabees Book of Isaiah Aramaic primacy

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 (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Eucharist

Congratulations on your work on this article. I wonder if you are right in saying Jesus ate with women. I think the only mention of women at the meals in which he participated are of women serving or, in one case, anointing his feet. Perhaps I am overlooking some mention. Lima (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps what you had in mind was the fact that Jesus (and the apostles) was accompanied in his journeys by women, several of whom are named. I prefer, at least for some time, not to touch the article in question, since anything I do to it is likely to be interpreted as a hostile act. Lima (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot help. In fact, I don't think that, strictly speaking, any importance attaches to meals as such in Jesus' ministry. Of course, particular meals were seen as important: his Last Supper, because seen as reenacted in some way by Christians; the post-resurrection meals, whose telling seems coloured by these first-day-of-the-week celebrations by Christians; the meals he provided (and presumably shared in, though this is not stated - nor is it explicitly stated, I think, that Jesus ate at his Last Supper) by, as recounted, multiplying the food. Other meals were important not as meals but for what happened at them (e.g. anointing of his feet) or the teaching he gave at them (e.g. commenting on guests going for the top places). So the only thing that distinguished the meals that Jesus, unlike the established religious leaders, shared in, was the fact that he ate with "publicans and sinners", people whom the latter would shun, a matter you have rightly mentioned in your revision of the article. I suppose the evangelists stressed this aspect precisely because of the hostile reaction by stricter Jews to Christian Jews sharing meals with Gentiles (cf. Acts 11:3). For my part, I just cannot believe that Christian Eucharistic celebrations (which of course change in form over the years and centuries) began as commemorations of all the meals that Jesus took during his ministry. This is just one of the ideas that, admittedly, an odd modern writer proposes (take "odd" in whatever sense you like) and that other writers perhaps do not think worth rebutting, but that Eschoir takes to be plain fact. Lima (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In Jesus' ministry, I have just remembered, there was at least one "meal" in which women certainly took part. Not an ordinary regular meal, but what you might call a picnic. The occasion was that of the multiplication of bread. In one of the accounts, the number of participants is given as so many men "without the women and children". However, it is possible that the bigger male children were reckoned as part of the groups of about fifty men, and the female participants, together with the small children, may have eaten apart. Lima (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] etiquette

Thank you - I appreciate the support especially from someone disinterested in the particular conflict. Wishing you a Merry Christmas (assuming you celebrate it= and happy New Year, SR (using a foriegn keyboard, can´t sign properly)

[edit] Jesus

I am too, but I am Jewish and I am a fan of a very Jewish )not one with God, not messiah= Jesus. I love ´´The Last Temptation of Christ´´ and while I do understand why it does offend some Christians, I love it in part for spiritual reasons. I was surprised to hear you describe your celebration of Christmas as heretical, given that you characterize Ehrman as an apostate ... does that really matter to you, or do you genuinely feel that even among University scholars his work is fringe? SR

• All I can foresee from your efforts to exclude John by omission is a brewing edit-war. I recommend leaving it at gospels. --JimWae (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

On the level of good writing, naming the synoptic gospels is better because it's more specific. Or even leaving it at synoptic gospels, which might even be better because it's a description rather than a list. On the level of WP politics, you're right. The people who want to reduce the accessibility of information win this one. But while we're here, let me say that it sounds rather accusatory, referring to my so-called "efforts to exclude John by omission." You have apparently discerned an ulterior motive in my actions. Let me assure you that I'm not trying to exclude John. I'm trying to overcome the bias of preferring the Christian category of "four canonical Gospels," and point out which gospels are historically useful. Leadwind (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry if it seems that was my intention. I had no intention of assigning any ulterior motive, I was trying only to be descriptive of what you were doing (You did make efforts to omit John, no?) My aim was to avoid an edit-war. I was opposed to naming the 4 gospels when they were first itemized about 2-3 years ago. I think naming them is excessive for the lede. The place to itemize them & assess their relative reliability is not in the lede. I tried to avoid "gospels of the NT" because gospels not in the NT are also sources (tho perhpas less reliable) for many prevalent stories (born im cave, Veronica's veil, Assumption of Mary,... [there should be an article on this, many doctrines are not in the NT and are in "other" gospels, ...and yes Mary is not Jesus]). However, plain "gospels" is looking a bit too sparse, so I wonder if NT will return --JimWae (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• I am still trying to determine if "divine" is more inclusive than "son of God". Complicating the decision is which article can it be linked to? --JimWae (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim, is there a reason you don't indent your comments like the rest of us do? Leadwind (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BE

My point is, BE being an apostate is a POV, a POV that only makes sense within a particular Christian frame of reference. But Wikipedia articles are not written from a Christion frame of reference, they are written from an NPOV frame of reference. In order to comply with NPOV we must include multiple views - including the views of Christians, including orthodox theologians and clerics. Now, some secularists - say, Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins - might characterize Christian views as superstitious deceptive medieval views. But I do not think this would honor the spirit of NPOV - what is important is the Hans Kung or Paul Tillich´s views are the views of devout Christians and should be identified that way (even Dawkins and Hitchens will agree that Tillich and Kung believe that they are devout Christians). Similalry, some Christians may consider Ehrman an apostate ... but we should not privilege their POV any more than we should privilege Hitchens or Dawkins´POV. What is important ' what Tillich, Kung, Hitchens and Dawkins can all agree on is that Ehrman is a non'religious (or critical) scholar. I have no objection to making it VERY clear that Ehrman does NOT represent orthodox Christianity. But what ´´does´´ he represent? I contend that it violates NPOV to say he represents the apostate view because that is only in the POV of some Christians. To comply with NPOV we should find a way of identifying him that we can all agree on (am atheist or a Jew would not agree that he is an apostate because atheists and Jews do not operate within a Christian frame of referenceñ we can agree that Christians think he is an apostate, but that is Christians´view, and not what Bart Ehrman for the sake of Wikipedia "is.") I would go with critical scholar, or secular scholar, or non-orthodox scholar. I hope my reasoning makes sense to you. I do not want to impose a non'Christian view on the article any more than anyone would wish to impose a Christian view. We must include multiple points of view and must identify each one as neutrally as possible. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] historians

No, and it was not my intention to be mean to you. I do not assume that all Wikipedians know everything about everything. I certainly do not know how Christian theiologians work and don't mind being educated. In any event, I apologize if I offended you. I really thought that it would be obvious to any hisotorian or student of history that a paragraph on historians' views would begin by naming the historical sources they have views on. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LWOP

Could I persuade you to look at the lede in Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP)? It's rumored to suck biggishy.Eschoir (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] user:Lima

I'm putting together a request for comment on user:Lima, and I'm logging my links here. Leadwind (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert abusing sourced text on Baptism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive33#user:Lima

Mediation of purgatory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-05-28_Purgatory

It would probably be best if you built it in a subpage, like User:Leadwind/LimaRFC or something similar. I will share my opinion when you file the RfC, or I can help you collect and organize evidence if you would like the assistance. Vassyana (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RFC/How to present a case may be helpful to you. Vassyana (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC User:Lima

At Vassyana's astute suggestion, I've started a subpage for this topic. Please see User:Leadwind/LimaRFC. Leadwind (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It is too much wikilawyering to discipline Lima - thanks for the invite, but right now I'm in a forgiving mood. Eschoir (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The adulteress

Leadwind, thanks for your work in cutting out duplicates and OR, This article continually attracts such matter and has to be regularly pruned. I have, however, added back some elements relating especially to the evidence for the passage as a non-Johannine tradition. There are two distinct debates; whether the passage is original in John 7:53, and whether the story is an authentic tradition from the apostolic age. In my view, as it stood, the article confused these. I hope you don't mind. TomHennell (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom, you're right that I didn't carefully distinguish between "genuine" and "original to John." I count on smart people to catch me when I overreach, so thanks. Next, I'd like to find a way to point out that the proponents of "original to John" are the scholarly equivalent of creationists. Leadwind (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whether Maurice Robinson is a "creationist", possibly he is; but his position on this pericope is contrary to the common consensus, and (though I do not agree with him) not without substance. In particular, the arguments against the pericope now appears rather less watertight than was thought in the early years of the 20th century. Firstly, Robinson has convincingly argued that the obelization of the passage in many manuscripts relates to its lectionary usage, and not to any doubts as to authenticity. Secondly, the discovery of references in Didymus the Blind undercut the argument that the passage is not known in any Greek Father. Thirdly, arguments from internal consistency are less convincing in John (which shows signs elsewhere of editorial redaction) than in the synoptics. Hence the passasge may not have been penned by the "original evangelist", but still be considered canonical if incorporated by the "original redactor". Finally, the widely accepted view that "umlauts" in Vaticanus indicate known, rejected, variants, may support the testimony of Western Fathers in ingicating the pericope was widely found in John in the manuscript tradition by the 4th Century. TomHennell (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

Dear Leadwind, can you please put your reference in the same format as all the other books on the page and provide a page number? We are in the process of being considered for Featured Article and I just finished redoing all refs so they are in the same format. Also, the book you cited needs to be added to the bibliography in the same format and in alphabetical order of the author. Please take a momment to complete your entry properly so we can get our little brown star:) I think you entry is a great sentence to keep but I'll have to toss it without a page number. Thanks for understanding. NancyHeise (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC) PS, if you dont know how to do this, you can just give me the page number, author and ISBN number for your book and I'll make the changes if you like. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the info, I made the necessary changes to include your edit and reference so they are consistent with the rest of the reference formats. Just wondering why you think the article is slanted to RCC? What should we be including that is not already included? We have incorporated criticisms of the Church at various points throughout the article as is the suggested style by Jimbo Wales to avoid having a section entitled Criticisms that often turns into a troll magnet. If you have any suggestions for improvement, I would like to know what they are. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I am just curious, I want to know what your honest opinion is - what should we change to make it unbiased?NancyHeise (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements to the article, I do think it is better and more NPOV. Honestly, we have tried to create a factual aritcle not a POV page. Sometimes people just want to know what an organization is, without reading an advertisement. That is what I did when I first went to the FA Islam. What I found there was a great Wikipedia page that just gave me the facts I wanted to know about that issue. We should be able to have pages like this on Wikipedia that help people know the plain facts without the page turning into a POV one way or the other. I think the RCC page does this - people can go there and know how the church originated, the controversy surrounding different theories, what the church believes and how that belief differs from other churches, what the community is made up of and how the pope is elected and governs, and finally, a brief summary of the main events in Roman Catholic Church history that includes criticisms at different point in history. I think it is FA quality - just my opinion. NancyHeise (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lead

Hey, I have added in my own suggestion for the Byzantine Empire, please take a look at the talk page. Tourskin (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I admit that Catholics do not exactly have a stainless record but at least we are Christian and at the end of the day, we are all trying so hard to be good Christians and follow God's will that in our hard headidness (all Christian denominations including Catholic) we sometimes look down upon each other. "Who ever is not against us is for us", is what the Lord our saviour said. You and I are not against him, definately not. We are for him, and therefore for each other. Peace be with you. Tourskin (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with me being a Catholic. I consider the Greek Orthodox Church to be one of the most legitimate Churches in the world, on level with the Catholic Church. I don't give a damn what you think; you're inflammatory, personal comments are not welcome here. You have done nothing to contribute to the Lead, so if you do have something to add in, add it in and save your snide comments. I left you a very welcoming, reconcillatory message on your talk page, its unfortunate that you misinterpreted this and are unable to extend your hand out in friendship.Tourskin (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Instead of attacking my religion, why don't you check out the discussions below in the Talk page of the article and see that there is an ongoing dispute as to what to call Byzantine religion. Tourskin (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we put this aside and work together as good friends?Tourskin (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John the Baptist

Fancy a challenge? An editor has put a "The introduction of this article is too short." tag on John the Baptist - quite right, too. I am planning to do some work on this, but not right now, and lead sections are not my strength. Given your interest in the genre, maybe you could have a go? If you have time. --Rbreen (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent stuff, very impressive. I knew we could rely on you! Thanks. --Rbreen (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Really Old EPMs

Hi Leadwind. I left a response to your question about really old EPMs, (which includes a citation from an Evolutionary Psychology textbook), on the Evolutionary Psychology Talk Page at Talk:Evolutionary psychology#really old EPMs. I thought you might be interested. EPM (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC) (Ironic that my username is EPM, eh?)

[edit] Computational theory of mind

Thanks. Sorry I was practically stepping on you earlier today. I agree that the current article doesn't really cover the subject at all. Your stuff is very solid. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)