User talk:Bhuck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

JW pages[edit]

Bhuck, welcome to the JW pages. I appreciate your contributions and look forward to working with you on improving the articles! --DannyMuse 16:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually the sect/cult thing has raised its ugly head here also a few times. If you're interested here are links to archived dialogue and how it played out. Whenever it comes up again I refer the editors to these links:
For your convenience I'll repeat some of the more salient points here now:
Interestingly, the website, Religious Movements: Jehovah's Witnesses (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Jwitness.html), had this to say about cults:
Cult or Sect: Negative sentiments are typically implied when the concepts "cult" and "sect" are employed in popular discourse. Since the Religious Movements Homepage seeks to promote religious tolerance and appreciation of the positive benefits of pluralism and religious diversity in human cultures, we encourage the use of alternative concepts that do not carry implicit negative stereotypes. For a more detailed discussion of both scholarly and popular usage of the concepts "cult" and "sect," please visit our Conceptualizing "Cult" and "Sect" page, where you will find additional links to related issues. (Emphasis added)
Also, Timothy Miller, of the University of Kansas, states in his essay, Religious Movements in the United States: An Informal Introduction:
“Cults” are usually defined by anticultists by lists of attributes they possess: they have charismatic leaders, they want your money, they demand high levels of involvement, they expect members to conform to certain behavioral patterns, and so forth. But such attributes are perfectly capable of belonging to groups that few would consider “cultic”—Catholic religious orders, for example, or many evangelical Protestant churches. If the term does not enable us to distinguish between a pathological group and a legitimate one, then it has no real value. It is the religious equivalent of “nigger”— it conveys disdain and prejudice without having any valuable content.
Thus academic students of nonmainstream religions generally quit using “cult” as a descriptive term. (Emphasis added) I hope this helps! --DannyMuse 16:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Reichstag building[edit]

I have never said the Bundestag is again assembling in the Reichstag building. I said "the parliament" is again assembling in the Reichstag building, which is indeed correct. To an English reader, the parliament of Germany is the parliament of Germany and that's it. The parliament changed its name in 1949, but noone are trying to hide that fact. And don't tell me Germany is a different state than Germany. If you do so, I will cite the German Federal Constitutional Court: "Die BRD ist nicht 'Rechtsnachfolger' des Deutschen Reiches, sondern als Staat identisch mit dem Staat 'Deutsches Reich". 83.109.186.140 11:28, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

anglicanism[edit]

you said that "The link to "province" does not provide a link to the concept of a national church, but instead to political subdivisions of a nation (such as the provinces of Italy)." so fix it don't just put that on the talk page if you have the time to write that on the talk page you have the time to get the right link and fix it
Bobburito 03:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) (please respond on my talk page)

Rolling Hills vs. Flat Illinois article[edit]

Thanks for changing that, had I noticed someone had characterized central Illinois as rolling, I would have changed it myself. That area is flatter than a table top. It's amazing really. Agriculture 22:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The JW-related redirection you introduced[edit]

Please take a look at the following thread:

and see if you want to make a comment. Thanks. 66.167.139.86 23:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC).


Townships[edit]

You wrote "They exist in some form in all states west of the original 13 colonies, except Kentucky and Tennessee." to replace Texas and Louisiana. I have no opinion on whether you introduced an error or eliminated one - I can't find verification for EITHER assertion. Would you care to point out the source for your information? Thanks! ClairSamoht 04:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I knew it was true for Kentucky and Tennessee, and thought it was false for Texas and Louisiana. After checking Public_Land_Survey_System, I see that it is indeed false for Louisiana, and also for Hawaii, Vermont, and West Virginia (though West Virginia was part of the Thirteen Original Colonies before becoming a state later). (See also this.) Texas uses a hybrid system--my personal theory is that northwest Texas (just look at all those squares on a map showing the counties there!) is using a system so close to the township system as to be basically identical, but obviously the southeast parts are on Spanish cadastral surveys, but this is true for some small parts of other states as well (including Illinois and California). In conclusion, I think my version is truer than the previous version, but could perhaps still use some improvement.--Bhuck 08:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Washtenaw County Commission Districts[edit]

I see your note asking about the locations of the 11 county commission districts in Washtenaw County.

I have added Government sections, briefly describing the structure and function of county government, and listing countywide officials, to the pages for the five Michigan counties which are larger than Washtenaw: Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Kent, and Genesee.

I have not done this for Washtenaw because such a list would include my own name.

In the larger counties, I did not list the individual county commissioners by name, partly because I thought those lists would be unlikely to be maintained up to date, and partly because I wasn't sure that individual commissioners were "encyclopedic".

However, someone else has added a nice party-color-coded list of Washtenaw County commissioners, and I don't argue with that addition. All I have done with that was to correct the spelling of some names. Maps of the districts are available here, and there are probably some less elaborate versions if preferable.

As to the question about the UM campus and county commission districts, there is some ugly history to that. (The rest of this comment is a political rant which can be ignored for Wikipedia purposes.)

In the version of the districts which was in force from 1992 to 2000, there was one district centered on the UM campus which was predominantly UM students. The commissioner elected from that district was Jeff Irwin, who was I think 22 when he was elected.

In 2001, the districts were redrawn using 2000 census figures. The number of districts was reduced from 15 to 11, and the downtown/student district was deliberately broken up. Jeff Irwin continues to serve as county commissioner, but from a vastly altered district.

In the meantime, the Michigan legislature, which is controlled by Republicans hostile to the concept of students voting in college towns, has tweaked the election law in all kinds of nasty ways to make it more difficult for students to vote. In particular, the absentee ballot campaigns which used to be done to get students to vote in August primary elections when they were out of town are all but illegal now.

Given that Ann Arbor is overwhelmingly Democratic, the primary is the critical election. With students effectively excluded from participating, the nomination in a predominantly UM student district (if one still existed, say in the form of Jeff Irwin's old county commission seat) would probably be controlled by a relative handful of nonstudent homeowners at the fringes of the district.

I'm not happy about this situation. Kestenbaum 13:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for writing me and making that information so much easier to find. From 1987 to 1990, I lived in Ann Arbor (and stayed over the summer) and was often an election judge (or inspector--I forget the terminology in use at the time), usually working the East Quad precinct--I remember a rainy June school board election for which we had maybe 7 people show up all day. Did you know Herb Katz, who was the guy responsible for city elections back then, if I remember the name?

Jeff Irwin's current district is still much more student-friendly than the city council wards in effect at that time, which I think were a result of memories of the Liberty Party's victories around 1970. I have since moved to Germany and become a German citizen (an easier way to get proportional representation than to wait for legislative relief in the US) and member of the Green Party here. Is there anywhere to find out more about what changes were made to make it more difficult to vote?

Unfortunately, I'm not good with graphics, so I can't figure out how to include a district map in the wikipedia article. For the German Wikipedia, though, I've started articles on Wayne and Oakland Counties, and plan to work my way down to Washtenaw eventually.

I had a look at your campaign site, which seemed quite convincing (in 2004, I was voting in Champaign County, Illinois, though, and hadn't read your campaign website)--certainly wish you continued success in the future! I've also enjoyed using the political graveyard website occasionally when it has surfaced in my Google searches (often induced by Wikipedia).

Brian Huck (de:Benutzer:Bhuck (particularly earlier revisions of that page--the current one is a reflection of winter discontent))

ECUSA Dioceses[edit]

Hi! I think I've only actually started four diocesan articles: Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire and Texas. I've lived in all but New Hampshire. Of course, I could start stubs for each one and see how quickly someone from that diocese fills them in. Sort of a "The Episcopal Diocese of X is the the diocese of ECUSA in the eastern half of the State of X. The see city is Y." kind of thing. I'm afraid that would mostly just create 80 or so new Anglicanism stubs.

BTW, good work on the Springfield and Illinois articles. Any chance of Chicago and Quincy following?Rockhopper10r 16:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the article link. I would add that the Diocese of Texas is not nearly as conservative on the whole as the Downstate Illinois diocese or our two neighbours to the north (Dallas and Fort Worth). We did just elect a woman bishop, after all. It's more middle-of-the-road, with more liberal parishes and more conservative ones, with most being somewhere in between.Rockhopper10r 21:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I've started filling in the blanks as it were. I've started articles for the remaining New England dioceses, all of which are very, very basic. We'll just see if anyone adds to them.Rockhopper10r 17:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the Connecticut article. I do appreciate it. I hope at some point, that there will be articles about every diocese. As to the other point. I also have trouble with the concept of "traditional" equalling "conservative" and apologise if it sounded like I was equating the two. I quite agree that traditional worship can have a liberal theology. The parish of which I am a member currently uses what would be considered a very traditional liturgical style for its primary service (we do Rite I Morning Prayer ante-communion once a month, for example) but is very progressive overall theologically. The Episcopal parish in the city where my parents (who are RC) live is a charismatic parish whose service strays quite a bit from the Prayer Book, but theologically, that parish is very conservative.Rockhopper10r 18:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Since "conservative" is defined as someone who favors traditional values (and conserves them), it shouldn't be necessary to apologize, but in this animal-farm world where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, it's sometimes hard to be understood. BTW, nice work, folks. ClairSamoht 18:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Nevada, after the election of the new Presiding Bishop I though it appropriate for there to be something to which references to the Diocese of Nevada could link. I'm sure someone who knows more about it can fill in the details. At this rate, we may have an article for every domestic diocese within a few months. Rockhopper10r 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Gruss[edit]

Hi Brian, thank you for your involvement with the gay agenda article too. I know it has come a long way. I did some reviewing and notice that you carried out the translation as well. Good job! I will certainly keep an eye on it, because I am always a bit skeptical that some social conservatives here will try to put a subtle spin on articles like this.

I am only active on German Wikipedia with interwiki, typo fixes, etc. I really wish I could do more, but I am not quite comfortable with translation from English-German (although I do a great deal from German-English). I lived in Germany for a couple years, so I am better at speaking and reading than writing. I would always love to go back and see my friends there. GilliamJF 22:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hallo, nein ich habe deine Benutzerbeiträge auf :de noch nicht gesehen. Was für eine andere Klima meinst du? Dass bei euch man locker bleibt? GilliamJF 20:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Das habe ich auch bemerkt. Auf wp:de, gibt es weniger Artikel aber was da steht ist länger. Mit vielen Grüssen, GilliamJF 01:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hallo, Bhuck mein Freund, ist alles in Ordnung? Alles, was gibt's hier bei Wikipedia ist nicht so ernst gemeint. Wo bist du genau? GilliamJF 09:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, ich war schon einmal in Mainz in 1998. Zur Zeit gibt's viel los bei homosexual agenda, aber der Artikel ist ganz kurz. Bist du damit zufrieden? Gruss, GilliamJF 15:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Stubs
Church of the Province of Southern Africa
Frank Griswold
Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida
Episcopal Diocese of Michigan
Reasoning from the Scriptures
Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta
Anglican Church of Mexico
Purple triangle
Western Christianity
Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse
International Bible Students Association
Lusitanian Catholic Apostolic Evangelical Church
Insight on the Scriptures
Church of Bangladesh
Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church
Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire
Nippon Sei Ko Kai
Cathedral Church of St. Paul, Detroit
Aid to Bible Understanding
Cleanup
Lambeth Conferences
Summary of Christian eschatological differences
Urbana, Illinois
Merge
Friends of Holy Trinity Cathedral Parnell
Illinois language
Jehovah's Witnesses and blood
Add Sources
Joseph (Hebrew Bible)
Jane Holmes Dixon
Desolation Row
Wikify
Elbridge Ayer Burbank
Hampshire Colony Congregational Church
New City, Illinois
Expand
Sheol
Aurora, Illinois
Predestination (Calvinism)

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 03:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Choice and sexual orientation[edit]

Just want to say that I'm glad we were able to work together productively on Choice and sexual orientation to create a compromise we could both live with, especially since we started off on the wrong foot. Al 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to your edits in other articles we've both edited, I was fairly sure we would be able to find a consensus.--Bhuck 10:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion[edit]

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! Fishhead64 22:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Special rights[edit]

Just a quick note on the Libertarian debate on the Special rights talk page. I think the debate there has ended, so I didn’t wish to rekindle it, but did want to let you know, why was so adamant. To me it seems that over the past decade or so, there has been a concerted effort by social conservatives to group themselves with libertarians, in their speech but not their views. I think, but cannot prove, that this has been done to legitimize social conservative positions. The more libertarian they seem the less opposed to equal rights they seem (i.e. less bigoted). Additionally by clocking themselves with libertarianism they give themselves non-religious philosophical support for their views and a powerful tie to the philosophy of many of the framers of the constitution. When they agree with libertarians little can be done to stop them, although I would argue that their agreement is coincidental as they did not reach their conclusion in the same way. However when they disagree, I have always tried to point out social conservatives mis-appropriation of libertarian values. Anyway enough of that. Franklin Moore 22:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's more or less what I was trying to say here ("appropriated that term for their particular anti-gay agenda"). I think you're exactly right.--Bhuck 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War[edit]

I am trying to guage the reasons why people are opposed to linking WOT to Iraq War. Can you please lay out your arguement against it, so I can see whre you stand and hopefully we can all work together to reach a middle ground perhaps. Thanks. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 11:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be possible to link the two articles, but this should be done in the article text, for example by saying "The Bush Administration considers the Iraq War to be part of the War on Terrorism, though this is highly contested both in the US and abroad." I think there is already a sentence to that effect in one of the two articles--I would have nothing against a wikilink in that context. To flat out say that it is a part of the War on Terrorism would be incorrect--there are many people, including influential US senators, who believe that there is either no link between the two, or that the ill feeling caused by the Iraq War has exacerbated the terrorist problem for the US.--Bhuck 12:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
So you feel since there is a debate in the Senate, that the name should not be included? And that since some other countries dispute it, it should not be either? Addressing the first issue, if the Senate passed a resolution linking the two, would you then reverse your opinion or would both points need to be addressed? Also if I was able to provide links to quotes be officials reffering to the Iraq War as part of the WOT, would that be good enough alone? --zero faults |sockpuppets| 12:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I did not mention other countries specifically, but since we're on the subject, how would you feel about an article on the war in Chechnya being labelled "Part of the War on Terrorism"? Should Sandinista incursions into Costa Rica or Honduras in the 1980s to combat Contra activities there be labelled that way?
The problem is that "War on Terrorism" is not so well-defined that it is easy to agree on what is part of it and what is not. If the Senate passed a resolution linking the two, I would still not agree that the label should be applied, unless either a) the resolution was unanimous, and not just a majority view, since minority views should also be respected, or b) that were part of an official Declaration of War on Iraq, and referred to another official Declaration of War which had previously been addressed to Terrorism.
And if officials refer to the Iraq War as part of the War on Terrorism, then that would not convince me that the label should be applied, but again, would certainly merit being mentioned in the article text. Remember that officials are appointed by the president to represent the president's views, which may not necessarily be the truth.--Bhuck 12:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the Senate issue, you are basically stating that everyone in the US would have to agree the war is part of the WOT, however that goes against the rules of the Senate itself. Using that basis one can say ther eis no war since the standard is everyone has to agree to it. I ask you lower the threshhold there as it seems you are purposely asknig for something that will knowingly never be achieved. I doubt there has been more then 10 unanimous votes ever in Cognress since the foundation of the republican / democrat system.
In regards to the naming, what is the WOT? "is a campaign by the United States, NATO, and other allies with the stated goal of ending international terrorism by stopping those groups identified as terrorist groups, and ending state sponsorship of terrorism." Its defined in the first sentence of the article in which it is linked. I hope that covers your worry of the Sandinistas, since it cannot retroactively label things. As fo the declaration of war, th Supreme Court already ruled that the Authorization to use force was a declaration of war, and that same document lists Iraq as part of the WOT.
Finally officials speak for their country, like it or not that is why they are elected. So I am not sure how to look at this, to reach a middleground you are basically asking for the entire world population to acknowledge this link, and the Congress to do something they cannot, cause the Supreme Court ruled its already been done, and to do it in a way that has possibly never been done, unanimously. It sounds to me like you are not willing to budge at all after reviewing that. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 14:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Does the Authorization to use force, to which you are referring, specifically mention the goal of ending terrorism? If so, how direct is that mention? Do the other countries participating in the Iraq War (with the exception of Iraq, of course) also state that this was their goal? Even if it were part of the US reason for going to war, maybe it was not part of Poland's or Kazakhstan's reasoning. For example, in the Wars of Italian Unification, Savoy had different reasons for going to war with Austria than did France--France was motivated by the possibility of annexing Nice, for example.
While a unanimous vote would be quite unequivocal, I think if you got a vote of 91-5 or something like that, that would also be a pretty clear indication of a wide consensus, as opposed to simply a majority-party view, which is what I think the case here really is.
Do you think the Iraq War is part of the WOT in the same way that the Battle of Gettysburg is a part of the Civil War? Or in the same way as the Pacific Conflict between Japan and the US was part of World War II?
Also, the article on WOT is not always as definitive as in the sentence you quote--for example there is an image of a TIME magazine cover there, with the headline "War on Terrorism" in reference to the hijacking of a Lufthansa plane in the 1970s.
I think you are overstating my position, if you feel I am requiring the entire world population to be unanimous.--Bhuck 22:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes the authorization does in fact mention terrorism. It highlightes general terrorist groups, and the link they though to al-Qaeda, it mentions it over 9 times, and I believe 3 times in relation to them getting WMDs. As for the other nations, those are the nations in the UN that supported Bush for one of two reasons, they felt Saddam had WMDs or they felt Saddam was a state supporter of terrorism. He did in fact have anti-Iranian and anti-Isreali groups with headquaters in Iraq. UK actually did attack because of terrorism and WMDs with a large worry over what terrorists could do with those WMDs. I am not sur eif you are familiar with how Congress works, but things are not passed by simply majority, it has to be above 3/4 I believe, one vote was 76-23 I think, and the other was an even larger gap. In the UK the votes was 400+ to 120 or so. Neither country passes law by simply majority. I believe it is the same way you would qualify the Pacific War to be equal to WW2. Some would argue that Japan had nothing to do with WW2 in Europe, but it was an extension in a different theatre under the same larger conflict. THe time magazine you are talking about is also in the section showing the previous "WOT" during I believe Nixons reign, its showing historical context of the name, the cover is from that period. It is not saying that incident is part of this WOT. Sorry if I am overstating your position, you asked for a unanimous vote earlier or implied one would be needed, something that is obvious would never happen. My apologies. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 13:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide a link to the text of the authorization measure that was passed by Congress? Then we would just need to determine whether the other participating countries also shared this motivation or not. Also, I would be interested to know why you feel this information needs to appear in an infobox in that format instead of just being mentioned in the text.--Bhuck 14:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Jacobitism[edit]

With regard to your point about Jacobitism on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography, the sentence which you found problematic was added by an anon at 16:32 on 2 March 2006 and not improved until 22:46, 9 July 2006, then POV problems were further reduced at 00:21 on 10 July 2006: I've now commented out the sentences concerned as they deal out of sequence with a matter covered later in the Hanoverians section. It will be a great help if you can raise any other concerns on the article talk page so that they can be given prompt attention. ...dave souza, talk 14:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Welcoming Congregation" restructuring[edit]

Please see my comment on reorganization of the "Welcoming Congregation" topic (replying there). Thanks! --Haruo 06:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Anglicanism COTM[edit]

The Anglicanism Collaboration of the Month has been reactivated! Please consider going to the page to either vote for one of the nominated articles, or nominate one yourself. Thanks! Fishhead64 02:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

CANA[edit]

My knowledge of CANA is next to nil - I know that the ACiC is the body active in Canada - in my diocese in particular. Fishhead64 06:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Is ACiC different from ACoC (Anglican Church of Canada)?--Bhuck 00:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes - see Anglican Coalition in Canada. Fishhead64 08:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Anglican Parishes of the Central Interior[edit]

Thanks for doing the translation of this article. The grouping of parishes known as the Anglican Parishes of the Central Interior exist in the former territory of the Diocese of Cariboo. They are under the jurisdiction of a suffragan to the Metropolitan of the Ecclesiastical Province of British Columbia and the Yukon. The suffragan is the Right Revd Gordon Light. So I think that qualifies as the "historic episcopate, locally adapted," pace the Lambeth Quadrilateral. Fishhead64 08:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. List of dioceses of the Anglican Church of Canada helps explain that, too. I will say 30 dioceses then.--Bhuck 00:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


Hallo[edit]

Hallo Bhuck, wir hatten schon mal vor Jahren Kontakt und dann hatte ich dich auch mal angerufen. Es ging um den Artikel "Yachad". Zur Zeit läuft ein heftiger Zensurversuch auf der Diskussionsseite des Artikels Mancala. Nicht nur ich bin davon betroffen, sondern auch der Benutzer:Peng. Dahinter steckt eine Männerseilschaft (Wiki-Deutsch: "Vertrauensnetz") aus den Benutzern Benutzer:Achates (admin), Benutzer:GNU1721, Benutzer:Scherben, Benutzer:my_name (ein erst 17-jähriger Amin), Benutzer:Tönjes (Adminkandidat) und Benutzer:Felix_Stember. Letzterer versucht mich mit absurden Drohungen unter Druck zu setzen und vandalierte gestern über 5 Stunden lang in der Wikinfo (darunter auf der Diskussionsseite von Fred Bauder, dem Gründer von Wikinfo). Schau doch auch mal auf folgender Seite nach. 89.55.80.60 14:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: Ich bin gerade von Benutzer:Scherben zum fünften Mal innerhalb der letzen 30 Stunden gesperrt worden, diesmal , um zu verhindern, dass ich dir schreiben kann. Deshalb der Text jetzt hier.

Anglican collaboration of the month[edit]

Wassupwestcoast 02:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity[edit]

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

Christian cross.svg

- Tinucherian (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I don't think I'm active enough in en:WP to participate at the level that I would expect of myself to warrant project membership, but I will keep you in mind and wish you well and can contribute as able to individual projects if you care to request anything.--Bhuck (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for my snarkiness[edit]

I reverted an edit you made to the article for Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin and made a snarky comment. Then I looked and saw you were a long established editor and not a new alias for one of the POV editors the article has been dealing with. I believe the revert was justified, but I should have been more polite in my explanation. My apologies. TechBear (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. It was more a note to myself to edit some more, but I had to run off to a meeting and now it is time for bed. I will get around to it sooner or later--I think there is some relevance there, but of course it needs to be explained in the article text. This way, I won't misplace the link anymore, since it is now embedded in the version history. But thanks for your explanation, anyway--it helps keep things civil and friendly! :-) --Bhuck (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding coordinates[edit]

Many thanks for adding coordinates to the Kirk in the Hills article. I've reformatted your coordinates in the (somewhat non-obvious) correct format of {{coord|42.5814|N|83.2947|W|type:landmark|display=title}}. For more information, there's now a good how-to guide to geocoding at Wikipedia:Geocoding how-to for WikiProject members. -- The Anome (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Diocese of Fort Worth (Southern Cone)[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Diocese of Fort Worth (Southern Cone), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This was deliberate. I have since modified the article.--Bhuck (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

OK....I answered your question at Talk:California Musical Theatre[edit]

I am not trying to war with you over this. Seriously....but I have been editing and creating articles about theatre on Wikipedia for a couple of years now and found this to be the must common mistake. While many people will not bother to worry about it....in an encyclopedia I think it is more important. My main reasoning for the use of the RE spelling on Wikipedia is because all of the major pages dealing with the subject and the project itself (Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre) use this spelling. I just like consistancy. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Reformed Episcopal Church[edit]

Hi, Bhuck. Thanks for your continuing additions to the cleanup of the REC article. I noticed your (commented HTML) question in the text about the REC-Nigeria agreement, and another HTML comment re: the Declaration of Principles (I'm not sure whether that comment was also yours or someone else's). I expect that most editors probably won't ever notice these comments; so may I suggest using the "Talk" page for this article? Regards. Chonak (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning the point about date formats. If you are seeing numbers for months, you can change that by adjusting your date autoformatting preferences. But as you indicate, I have not been up to date on the preferred practice. The purpose of linking dates was in order to make the autoformatting work according to users' preferences. But apparently doing so created link clutter, so the preferred practice has changed. Chonak (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

re: blacklist[edit]

Looks like I probably got over there a little late, looks like the passages involved are already history, sorry for the delay in responding! --Joe Decker (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I'm blind this morning, I see what you're talking about. Yes, that sentence concerns me too, the combination of lack of citation and vagueness seems problematic. This article ( http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/11/10/daily40.html?jst=pn_pn_lk ) at least connects antigayblacklist.com to Eckhern, and suggests something the sentence does not to me really make clear, the boycott and pressure were put on the theater. One way to read this is that E may have stepped down out of a sense of duty to protect the theater, alternatively, perhaps he just didn't like his name in the papers all of the time. --Joe Decker (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Original Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
I hereby award you this Original Barnstar for your continuing efforts on the Prop 8 article and your well-mannered discussions on the talk page. Your efforts make Wikipedia a more worthwhile place. It is appreciated! MrBell (talk)

Congratulations on your barnstar. Excellent work by the way!--Amadscientist (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks!--Bhuck (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a change to the lead of California Proposition 8 (2008)[edit]

I have placed the changes I suggest on the talk page under the "Lead" discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

El Coyote Cafe[edit]

per your post here. You should still post a reference to the info. That way it you don't run the risk of having it reverted. I didn't revert, but it's just a suggestion. — Ched (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Prop 8 question...[edit]

Just wanted to ask your opinion before challenging the sentence, and regarding our previous discussion: Not sure if I was absent for a talk page discussion, but the phrase, "Many bishops and stake presidents set specific monetary goals for their membership, in order to fulfill this call," with this[1] as a reference appears in the Prop 8 article here. I read the reference twice and can't seem to locate that exact wording. Your thoughts? MrBell (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you interpret this sentence from the article: "With this information in hand, bishops in local communities went from house to house in California asking for specific amounts of money for the Yes on 8 campaign -- an incredibly effective fund-raising tactic." ? I would say that comes pretty close.--Bhuck (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that contributors need to interpret information in order to streamline the encyclopedia, but I'm uncertain how to do it here. The article only mentions "based on 10% tithing (which is based on honesty since they never check tax records), LDS leaders are able to gain an accurate picture..." and "bishops...went from house to house asking for specific amounts..." But I question how the "information in hand" was used and whether they had a set goal. When I read the paragraph I see: LDS leaders were able to gauge how much their congregants make, and bishops[which?] in local communities[where?] went from house to house (I'm assuming Mormon houses) asking for specific donations.[how much?] How many houses did they go to? Was the specific donation based on the congregants' incomes, or just a standard amount (e.g. $100 from everyone who attends church and pays tithing over X amount, or if Family #5 should donate $500 because they make $50,000 a year)?
Also, how would this reference hold up to GA or FA scrutiny? I had read a few Advocate articles before but none have as many typos as this one ("In june..." from first sentence; "accurate picture p of how much..."). Yet the grammar seems fairly neutral and well-written. In looking for another source, other than the blogs you found earlier when we first discussed this, there doesn't seem to be much available. MrBell (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't have much experience with GA or FA scrutiny in the English Wikipedia, so I can't say for sure what standards are applied. Personally, I think it would be dumb to reject a source because it did not capitalize June. I would think the scrutiny would instead focus more on the reputation and neutrality of the Advocate. The Advocate has a fairly good reputation, I think, as far as journalistic standards go (probably slightly higher than queer.de, which arouses controversy in the German Wikipedia sometimes), but it is clear that they do select which stories to research and report based on a particular constituency that they serve, so it is not as neutral a source as, say, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Still, I think it does not constitute an automatic quality problem with the article to cite an article from the Advocate. This is a subject for which one would not expect too many sources, and hardly any from completely disinterested mainstream media (i.e. neither Mormon nor LGBT).
The original phrasing was that "LGBT media claimed that many bishops and stake presidents..." I am not sure who took out that attribution or why. I don't know if you know about the structure of the Mormon episcopacy (if you can call it that), but they have a LOT of bishops--I think each local community has at least one. So my interpretation of "bishops in local communities" upon first reading it was "all bishops in all local communities in California", since the Mormon letter itself announces that all members will be hearing from their local leaders on how they can get involved, but I agree the phrasing does leave some wiggle room for other interpretations. Maybe not everywhere did they go door to door (particularly in far-flung rural areas). As far as I am concerned, I would like to make as sure as possible that the idea of an every-member-canvass with the expectation that everyone give comes through in some form or another, but of course, if something else was demonstrably the case, I would certainly yield to such proof. I agree, some of the evidence is somewhat circumstantial, but the Mormon letter itself seems to require from us that we somehow interpret the bit about "hearing from your local leaders about how you can get involved" into somewhat less Mormon-POV-language. We do have at least SOME indication of what might have been (or probably was) meant by this phrase. What would you like to do on this point, assuming we turn up no additional evidence?--Bhuck (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I see your point on the Advocate. It is normally a good source and shouldn't be disqualified for a few typos.
As for the Mormon episcopacy (or whatever it's called) - I was born and raised Mormon and now attend weekly. You are right in describing bishops (there are a lot), because bishop is the title given to the local pastor/priest. So a bishop coming to one's door is not a big thing - it's just a visit from your local pastor.
From my experience, my bishop did not go door-to-door to the houses of members asking for donations (at least not to my door, in the urban Inland Empire). A lot of us in the ward (congregation) volunteered our time (per the letter that was indeed read in church) to help out the ProtectMarriage.com coalition by going door-to-door (to everyone, not just church members), asking poll questions, and asking people if they wanted to put signs in their yards, volunteer their time, reminding them to vote, etc., but we didn't ask for donations.
However, I heard that some people closer to our bishop may have been asked to help out with a donation (the bishop is just a local member who volunteers for 5 years, so naturally he has some friendships with other local members). This was echoed by those blogs you found, but as for anything concrete I don't know.
As for what to do, I'm unsure and hesistate removing the statement just because I don't agree with it. It sounds like bishops may have set some goals, and may have asked for specific donations, but I can't find a direct source or anything specific. I'd prefer to just quote the Advocate article (maybe too long a quote?), or paraphrase it somehow without trying to interpret too much. I like the, "LGBT media claimed..." statement, but I think it might cause the reader to discount the source automatically. I'm at a loss for ideas, and I avoid editing the article when I can't think of anything constructive. What's your opinion? Also, should we transpose this discussion to the Prop 8 talk page and see what ideas are generated there? MrBell (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
How about just changing the sentence to "Many bishops and stake presidents set goals--sometimes quite specific--for their membership, organizational, monetary, or often both, in order to fulfill this call," or something perhaps a bit less convoluted? That also expands the wiggle room, I think. Do you think your bishop set no goals at all, set only vague goals, set only organizational goals (get so many people to cover so many streets door-to-door) instead of monetary ones, or perhaps he set monetary ones but only disclosed these goals to a select set of contributors large enough to reach the goals? Probably the approach did get adapted to local circumstances, but I think it was much more thoroughly organized than say, in the Roman Catholic Church. Do you see a difference here between the way the two denominations operated? I don't know of a Mormon equivalent to Geoffrey Farrow, for example, nor do I think that Roman Catholic parishes went door to door asking people to put up signs (perhaps a few individuals might have, or the Knights of Columbus, or they might have passed out signs in church). By the way, my compliments on your neutrality in editing--I am quite surprised to discover that you are LDS! Presumably my own opinions show up more in my edits. As for putting this on the Prop 8 talk page, I am not sure about that--Wiki-principles would seem to indicate that in the long run, it would lead to the best possible suggestions, but I don't know whether everyone there will be as circumspect and careful about the phrasing as you or I.--Bhuck (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, maybe you will find this article I just ran across to be interesting?--Bhuck (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment regarding neutrality. I can't say I get challenged too often about my beliefs (though it is on my user page), and as long as I keep my opinions to a reasonable minimum and focus on Wikipedia policy, most people don't mind my background. Also, thanks for the article link. I think it's always difficult to step outside ourselves and consider the point-of-views of others (especially in Wikipedia), especially when we may not agree with the point-of-view being expressed.
Regarding your questions, my bishop did encourage everyone to volunteer somehow, and even some of the older youth (16 years old and up) stood out with signs on street corners (with other adult members too). The ProtectMarriage.com coalition gave our ward a specific geographic area in our city that we were to contact, either by telephone or door-to-door. So there was a set goal for contacts - everyone in our geographic area. It seemed like a weekly or bi-weekly reminder (annouced from the podium) to participate somehow. But there were limitiations on what they could say while in church (due to non-profit organization rules), so there was usually a meeting at someone's house that everyone was encouraged to attend. As for monetary goals, I would tend to think that you're right: a select set of contributors were approached rather than everyone. However, like you mentioned, perhaps that varied based on local circumstances. Also, whether that was chosen by the local leadership or came from Utah I don't know.
As for the Roman Catholic Church, the Knights of Columbus, or a Geoffrey Farrow, I haven't heard anything specific. I'm sure a Mormon bishop professing to be gay would be a huge media story. As for Catholicism, My wife's family is Catholic (some attend weekly), and while I remember seeing Yes on 8 signs in front of some of their houses, I don't remember them ever vocalizing their involvement in the campaign though they are aware that I was involved (which doesn't mean that they didn't, just that I never heard anything about it).
I like your revision and the inclusion of "organizational, monetary..." because there were indeed more than just monetary goals, but I agree that the sentence structure is a little rough. How about "Local LDS leaders set organizational and monetary goals for their membership--sometimes quite specific--in order to fulfill this call." I say leaders because we'd otherwise have to include branch presidents and district presidents too (bishop and stake president equivalents in smaller congregations), and any other leader who may have set their own goals. However, it still may be too vague and require some clarification come GA review. MrBell (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be just fine--and then the ref could be expanded beyond the Advocate article to include the First Presidency letter as well, since that actually uses the phrase "local leaders" in that regard. Also, probably for people unfamiliar with LDS hierarchy, it would just cloud the issue to use terms like bishop and stake president.--Bhuck (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Change made. Thank you for helping me out with this. MrBell (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

California Proposition 8 (2008)[edit]

Hi there, you have been one of a number of regular editors at the above article. I was its Good Article reviewer a few months back. In response to a recent proposal to split the article, I suggested it be edited down to a more manageable size and better readability rather than focussing on the split. I suggested the article was not particularly readable in its current form, and suffered from recentism amongst other things. I have just undertaken an edit attempting to implement my suggestion, in the hope that others might have a look and decide it is now in better shape. I hope you will agree. I am happy to discuss on the talk page obviously. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Andre Bauer[edit]

I've been watching this article. User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz has been deleting all reference to the controversy on Bauer's "outing." Since this subject has been discussed in venues such as CNN, it meets the criterion for inclusion even though Bauer is still living. As Wikipedia is not censored, I consider User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz's deletion of this material to be vandalism.THD3 (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for once again reverting the unwarranted deletion of material by User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz. He is incorrectly interpreting WP:BLP, because the article does not claim that Bauer is gay, it only says that several have claimed that he is. User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz has refused my request to discuss the subject further on the article's talk page, and removed my response to him from his own talk page.THD3 (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Bi actually[edit]

but the gag is not so good. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, wasn't really aimed at you in particular--could just as well have meant Benjiboi--though of course, maybe he is bi, too. Just thought the heading looked a bit ironic on his talk page. No harm or offense intended, and I'm not taking sides in the dispute between the two of you.--Bhuck (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
That's fine I'd just suggest that you are carefully with editing other people's headings as before you know it people will be rushing to the page accusing you of being a homophobe or a vandal or something. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I did worry about that a little after hitting save, but figured there was little corroborative evidence.--Bhuck (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Bhuck! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 1,985 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Friedel Grützmacher - Find sources: "Friedel Grützmacher" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  2. Roland Vogt - Find sources: "Roland Vogt" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  3. Uwe Hüser - Find sources: "Uwe Hüser" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  4. Heike Wilms-Kegel - Find sources: "Heike Wilms-Kegel" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

your rewording of same-sex marriage in california[edit]

Let me know if I'm getting too pedantic, but I disagree with your recent edit [2] and would like to explain why. Wording legalese in an enyclopedia article is always a tricky issue.

(BTW, thanks for actually having *read* the footnote!)

One reflects the use of "procedural". I think that an ordinary reader of the WP article would expect a "procedural difference" to not include a limitation such as "couples who are blue can get married if they dont't live together, but couples who are pink must live together to get their equivalent ticket." I just don't buy that that is a matter of "procedure" to most readers, it's a substantial difference on the price of entry. Technically the "putative spouse doctrine" may seem like a mere procedural issue, but it's an valuable legal protection to those who rely on it.

Second, the rarely used veterans property tax exception and the access to CalPERS long-term health care insurance are not procedural differences, nor are do they relate to dissolving relationships. It is merely that the Court here has decided that those benefits are not "substantial", a word whose meaning (IMHO) here is parallel to the word "almost" in my own coinage.

I'd prefer a different wording. Can you tell me why, in light of the above, you object to what was written? --je deckertalk 21:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't insist on the wording "procedural", but what I mean is "relating to the actual formation or dissolution of the partnership, rather than the status accorded when such a relationship has been established". As for the putative spouse issue mentioned in the opinion, see this overturning of that issue. So that leaves the veterans property tax exemption and the CalPERS insurance. While I would agree with the court that the former is not "substantial", since more or less obsolete, it does seem strange that the legislature, if it is passing legislation anyway, does not just get rid of the obsolete benefit or extend it to domestic partners. The CalPERS benefit is related to federal definitions of marriage, so only on the surface a state-granted right, as state sovereignty is rather deeply infringed if the federal government is telling the state to whom it can grant a tax-free benefit and to whom it cannot, but also would seem to be a difference. Those two were differences 7 and 8 of nine differences, and by that point in the footnote, I was not reading quite as carefully as at the beginning. I still think, though, when you compare the California law with the legal situation for registered partners in Germany, for example, you will find that the California legislature did a much better job of making the two insitutions identical, though again its options and scope of sovereignty are severely limited by the federal constitution and the DOMA (which may itself be unconstitutional).--Bhuck (talk) 06:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Otto4711/ Checkuser[edit]

Hallo Bhuck, you could be interested to have a look at the case of user:Otto4711, who has been infinitely blocked in September 2010 for sockpuppet allegations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Otto4711/Archive.

The case of Otto4711 could be compared with that of Glgermann in De.wikipedia. Though Otto4711 had a history of blocks, mainly for edit-warring, and cases of uncivil language (compare some of the comments of "oppose"-voters in his May 2007 Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Otto4711), I have serious doubts in the correctness of his recent infinite block.

What really astonishes me is, that yesterday, after I only had explained this case on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Trying_to_understand_another_user.27s_block,

some group of users, administrators and checkusers immediately ordered a check of my own private connection data. Perhaps I should now go to m:Ombudsman commission to let this violation of my data privacy be investigated,

Greeting Schwalker (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC) (de:User:Rosenkohl)

Sorry, as you can see, I am only editing sporadically. Unlike some admins here, I can understand why you would be interested in questioning Otto4711's block, but I don't know my way around the :en administrative procedures and archives to be able to find the discussion that led to his block in the first place, and probably don't have enough time to pursue such an investigation effectively. Other than a common interest in LGBT subject matter and the knack to get blocked and try to get around the block, I don't quite see the commonality to GLG. In de:WP there are perhaps more commonalities with Optimismus/Enlightenment & Co, unless you can point me to some edits about the pope's sexual orientation and choice of shoe color :-) ; if you have some more information, I will be happy to look at it, but in terms of knowing how to defend privacy rights in en:WP, where I have no idea what the Checkuser-policy is, I am afraid I won't be of much help there.--Bhuck (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

babel symposiarch[edit]

Comparing your corrections to my self assessment, it seems that my English (BE) is far not so good as I expected. I will have to reassess.--Symposiarch (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I would not recommend lowering your assessment; "intermediate" is modest enough, and you are dealing with very advanced and complicated subjects. Your version is certainly comprehensible, but needs more polishing before it could be considered "near native" (en-4).--Bhuck (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I lowered it already sometime in the past. But thanks to your assessment anyway.--Symposiarch (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:Anglican navbox colour discussion[edit]

Hullo, fellow WikiProject-er. We're having a discussion about the colours of Anglicanism navboxes. Please do come along and weigh in. DBD 17:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:List of United States congressional districts related to style of new district-level maps for the post-2013 United States congressional districts. Your input would be appreciated. Thank you. --7partparadigm talk 02:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)