User talk:Ramsquire/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →

Contents

Thanks...

Thanks for endorsing the RFC. I'm actually started a RFCU in the case and hopefully something will get done about it. ---J.S (t|c) 05:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Cbuhl79 Sockpuppet

I suggest throwing down some diffs (and histories) with time/date stamps under the evidence section of your sock puppet case. Check the workspace for my (expired :( ) arbitration request for some examples. USER:Blaxthos/RfARB_Cbuhl79. /Blaxthos 19:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now what

So we have an RFC up on RPJ finally. (Something we should have done months ago, and I take the blame for that one - I just kept hoping he would go away on his own.) What do you think our next step should be? The RFC hasn't given RPJ the least bit of pause. I would suggest ArbCom, but their slow pace and reluctance to take certain cases makes me think perhaps we should persue mediation first. RPJ would likely reject mediation in a lengthy, incomprehensible screed, which would make the ArbCom case stronger. Or it might be a frustrating couple of weeks, and then we head to ArbCom. Thoughts? Gamaliel 18:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I would propose mediation first. If he refuses then we go to ArbCom. Apparently it's almost impossible to get cases passed by ArbCom, as there are only 6 active members right now, with 3 active members who rarely vote. If we were to take it to ArbCom now and they let it die in 10 days, RPJ may just get emboldened. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point, we don't want to accidentally give him a freer pass than he already has. Mediation it is. Gamaliel 19:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Your Friendly Advocate Arrives!

Hi, I've agreed to help you out as an advocate. Please feel free to ask me questions about any part of the process you like. Even though I have not had a formal account for long (I preferred the anon ip until I realized that it's more noble to put a name behind my words), I'm very familiar with WP policies, and I'm confident I'll be able to help you out. I will leave the mode of contact up to you (I'll be watching this page for your preference). If you prefer email, just head on over to my userpage and select "email this user" in the toolbox. I'm on WP a lot during the week, but it's better to try and email me if you need a quick response on the weekends. Talk to you later! →Bobby← 22:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my case. The problems I have with this user is accurately stated in this RfC. Today I requested the assistance of the Mediation Cabal. Basically I don't think this guy can work well in this environment and should be banned. Any advice or guidance you can give will be greatly appreciated. I just want to make sure that I am not going too far. Contanct via my talk page should be fine for now. If the situation changes, I'll let you know. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Alright. RPJ left a message on my talk page asking if I agreed to advocate your case and inquiring whether or not he should seek advocacy. I simply told him that I had in fact agreed to advocate for you and it is always good to seek advocacy when confused about WP processes. He also stated that you and Gamaliel are in a group who want him banned from editing WP. Just wanted to let you know. It looks like your RfC is in good order; I'll pop over and leave a comment at some point. As to the Cabal Mediation (which is a good next step) I expect you may get a mediator within the next week or so. We'll have to be a bit patient with that. As a Cabal mediator myself, I know first hand how much time a case can take. Please let me know if there's anything I can do in the meantime. I might go ahead and bring in some outside editors and admins to try and get their views posted on the RfC, assuming this is ok with you. Have a good one, →Bobby← 14:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Update - Just so you know, I went ahead and invited several user to leave a comment on the RfC page. I pretty much went through RPJ's talk page and contacted anyone who had an issue with the user in the past (which pretty much boiled down to everyone on the page). I know I said I was going to wait until I heard back from you, but I thought it would be better to give every involved editor plenty of time to leave a comment. I'll keep in touch about any future action I take. →Bobby← 16:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

FLS

Cool. That makes you the fifth known Fordham Law student or graduate with an active Wikipedia account including myself. How's cali? What do you do out there? Fun law things? - crz crztalk 19:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Confusion (Jews for Jesus)

I think you are correct that there was confusion. I assume you are referring to the edit summary that said "and again." That was not directed at you, it was a "sequel" to my prior edit summary. If you look at the edit history, you will see that I wrote my initial comment, then after "saving" realized it didn't look right, and the edit summary was "Reformatting slightly" or something like that, then I save again and realized that it still wasn't right, and the edit summary where I fixed it was "and again," meaning I was reformatting again. (Of course I should have been using the preview button through all this, but I was trying to get it posted fast because it had already been edit-conflicted-out once.) So no, it was not directed at you.

As for your second paragraph, I agree. I think that in general, most people have little understanding of religions other than their own. As children, they (we) are generally not taught about other religions at home or within their own faith, and when they are, it is from the perspective of their own religion and not the others. This leads to misunderstandings throughout life when people of other faiths are encountered, and the results are in the news every day. One of the misunderstandings is among Christians, as to why belief in Jesus Christ is incompatible with Judaism. The simplest answer is, it just is. Jews do not believe that the Messiah has come, and there also is nothing in Judaism about the Messiah being the Son of God, or being any other deity. There are additional reasons why I think Judaism insists on preserving the distinction, but they are more practical and historical than religious in nature, and this note has gotten too long already. But I will just leave you with this, I think Jewish people generally wish that other religions would just leave our little religion in peace and not try to convert the rest of us to something else. This, at least, is reflected in the article, and is supported by a number of Christian groups as well. 6SJ7 02:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ramsquire: thanks for your opinions on Jews for Jesus. I wondered if you would like to comment on one specific point in the article. The article currently says "Belief in the divinity of Jesus, or in Jesus as Christ, is incompatible with Judaism." This is obviously a sentence Jews for Jesus would disagree with; some editors think it should be allowed in Wikipedia as a fact. Could you have a look at the section and give an opinion please? DJ Clayworth 16:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hrm...

Well, I don't know what to say, the thing of it is, most of the same people on Humus's side have been going about the same sort of vein concerning this article ever since the talk page first started being used :/. Sorry if I made you sad over my changes, I didn't see who wrote the intro like that and it seemed wrong to me, but I assumed that the Leigh letter was added in by someone on Humus's side since it was in the list of people who objected to JfJ, so I thought i'd avoid another nasty altercation by retaining the reference in a different way :/. (Of course, once I read the letter, it turns out it supports the opposite perspective to Humus's and the editors on his sides general point of view.) I think that at some level, an easy way not to get bothered by other editors on JfJ is to just not engage them when you don't feel like it, i've been doing it most of the time :D. Humus has said some rather annoying things to editors before, (where "annoying" to me could easily be hateful to others in my opinion) but the thing is, even though i'm actually a fundamentalist Christian, i've never really seen the need to engage in hardcore defense of JfJ. I have almost no idea of how exactly they evangelize at a grass roots level, and until I learn more, I hesistate to defend them in most ways lest I end up defending an organization who might be spreading Christianity innefectively, or worse, downright wrong :/. In the meantime, it's been sort of interesting for me to be editing and commenting on this article, and while I haven't yet learned much about JfJ the way I really want, I have learned some fairly important things about Judaism.....much of it not positive. Homestarmy 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering the sides involved in this article, I think this is just one of those subjects where consensus can't be expected heh. I even tried to ask everyone to just stop edit warring and let the majorities version stand for a few weeks while I nominated JfJ for WP:GA to test it for neutrality that way, but nobody even responded and the edit war in progress just kept on going :/. Homestarmy 01:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, we already had that Second Opinion thing recently, and everyone seems to of been shot down so to speak, would an RFC really do much? Homestarmy 02:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald's sharpshooter badge

If you feel something in an article requires a source, either find a source for it or mark it with the [citation needed] tag--Don't just delete it. Thanks. --Bri 07:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

  • RPJ is banned from Wikipedia for one year.
  • RPJ is placed on indefinite probation. He may be banned from the site for an appropriate period by any administrator if he edits in a disruptive manner.
  • Edits by anonymous ips or alternative accounts which mirror RPJ's editing behavior are subject to the remedies applied to RPJ. Blocks and bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 05:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Bill O'Reilly (commentator)

Thank you for removing that stupid IP address comment. Also, I think I deserve a gold star for not taking the "bait". For once. 0:) Wahkeenah 23:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

JFJ

Hey, I thought I'd comment over here just not to clutter up that page further. So clearly Messianic Jews are a small minority, but wouldn't a significantly larger number say that being Jewish is mainly a matter of identifying as such, and doesn't require any one specific belief? At least with Christianity, I don't believe there is societal concensus about /any/ specific required beliefs, other than perhaps that Christ was important in some way. So is there really a concensus that Judaism has certain required beliefs? Are there any others than not believing Jesus is the Messiah? I'm not an expert at all; I'm just curious where you're coming from. Best, Mackan79 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Talmud and Torah define the Jewish faith. In it, a Messiah is promised and that Messiah must fulfill certain prophecies. According to Judaism, Jesus did not and does not. If one believes that Jesus has done so, they cease to be a Jew. The belief in a coming Messiah is part of the core of the faith. Although individual Jews may define their Jewishness any way they feel fit. The central doctrine of the faith remains unchanged. This article here, explainst the Jewish view on the issue [1]. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, the article may be accurate, but it seems to come from a site that's trying to refute JfJ. I mean, most people would say that Christianity is defined by the Bible, but at the same time, wouldn't it be somewhat problematic on a page of a minority Christian sect to simply assert contrary bible verses as "Christianity"? Like, on the page for Mormonism, "Mormons believe Jesus came and lived in America for a time. Christianity says that Jesus spent his whole life in and around Bethlehem." My problems would be dual: 1. I don't think Wikipedia can or should speak for Christianity in that way, which is going to be extremely controversial, and 2. Even if it's most likely true, this violates the Wikipedia policy to treat all views as plausible. Isn't that a problem?Mackan79 02:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Well the difference is where Jesus lived is ancillary to the faith, such as ideas like the Trinity. However, if Mormons or some other sect believed someone other than Jesus was the Messiah, then they ceased to Christian. So it is with Jews. Once they accept someone as a Messiah, they leave the faith. However, I do see your point, and I'm trying to make Jayjg and others see it too. The problem is how do we present a group advocating a tiny minority viewpoint without giving undue weight to their viewpoint in their article. But two things: first JfJ consider themselves Christian. Second, if in the JfJ article we write "JfJ believes belief in Jesus as Christ is compatible with the scriptures of Judaism" that's fine but Jayjg wants the affirmation of Judaism in there and doesn't want to listen to other ideas. But if we add "Most Jews disagree with that idea or JfJ's interpretations", then we are misleading the reader because we are giving the reader the impression that there is some debate surrounding the topic in Judaism, when the tenet of the faith is very clear and unambiguous. However, the "most Jews" statement becomes more accurate if we make clear we are talking about the position of Jews as an ethnicity, not as a religion. But again, obstinance stops even that from being considered. We have to present their view as plausible (even though it isn't) and yet attempt to be accurate. It's very tough. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to respond slowly. I see your point. I think we basically just have slightly different perspectives on what defines a religion. I guess I'm somewhat of a populist: if someone says they're Christian or Jewish or any other religion, I'm not sure who can tell them they're not. Of course, I acknowledge certain central tenets, but even there, I really would define almost nothing as absolute. Some people say they're Christian even if they don't think Jesus was anything more than a wise man. Are they wrong? Says who? I understand where you're coming from; I'd simply try to avoid the controversy. Basically, I think we could find wordings that would make both of us happy by getting around both problems -- not saying "Most Jews don't believe Jesus is the Messiah," but also not going out of our way to say JfJ must be wrong to believe that. When you use the word "incompatible," though -- "Most Jewish scholars say belief in Jesus is incompattible with Judaism" -- I really don't think it's insulting, and something a lot of people may well not know. And the fact is, there probably is one scholar who says the opposite. That doesn't mean we should devote time to that scholar, but perhaps we shouldn't entirely rule him out? In the end, nothing is perfect... I think we're on the same page, though, and I definitely think it's the kind of thing we could work out. Best, Mackan79 21:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Name?

Your name is similar to Ramza Beoulve, a squire in Final Fantasy Tactics. Is that where it comes from? Milto LOL pia 10:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I never noticed the similarity. My name is a combination of my school's nickname and my profession. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 17:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request notification

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus 2, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

JfJ beliefs

I think we probably should post it to the talk page at some point, so everyone can have a say. Perhaps we should start a new section specifically for that issue?

As to what JfJ believes, I figured I'd take a more direct approach-and ask them! I did receive a response, and it seems to be pretty clear. I can't post it to WP (no GFDL release), but I'd be happy to forward it to you by email if you'd like to see it. Seraphimblade 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sent away. You might want to take your email off the page-I prefer setting it up through the WP email interface, that way it doesn't have to appear on pages anywhere. Seraphimblade 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)