User talk:-Ril-

I have split my talk page into 3 sections. Please respect the sections as I will ignore and delete anything not respecting them. Thanks, ~~~~

This page, nor any of the subsections, is not to be used for the preservation of articles, or talk pages, about to be deleted in accordance with a vote on VfD.

---

John 15 split

You've called for a split and dab of John 15 - I'm not sure I understand you reasoning. Could you perhaps explain on the talk page what you are aiming at. (NB I'm not neccessarily disagreeing with you - just trying to understand). --Doc (?) 9 July 2005 18:36 (UTC)

I am calling for it to be split into seperate articles about the various different subjects contained in the chapter such as the filioque clause, etc. And then for a disambiguation page to point to each of the pages into which it has been split. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - that's much clearer. You might want to post this suggestion on the talk page, so that it can be discussed. Personally, I not sure that I see the benefit in it - but a discussion might involve others and reach a consensus without constant reverts. --Doc (?) 21:26, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Uncle G is probably better discussing it, he has more knowledge of the biblical text than I do. My background is concerned more with mythology and comparative mythology (and mythos, legends, etc.). I am more concerned here with its non-encyclopedic quality than its exact content, and my motives are more editorial than content driven, so I am not best suited for a deeper level of discussion. ~~~~ 21:29, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Actually you are wrong in your understanding of the 3RR. The very foundation of the 3RR is that there is never need revert someone three times, for if an edit is poor more than one editor will disapprove of it. Only if a single person is controlling multiple accounts does the 3RR carry over. - SimonP July 9, 2005 18:48 (UTC)

Actually, people are forbade from using proxy editors to circumvent rules. This is explicitely the ruling of the arbitration committee. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)

Your mere contesting of this point strongly indicates that you contacted JYolkowski specifically because you wish to circumvent 3RR. This is not appropriate behaviour. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

Nominate us on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR then, but note that every other listing in that page's history is for only one editor per side. - SimonP July 9, 2005 19:26 (UTC)

That would require you to violate 3RR. So far you have only made 3 reverts between you. I note that the above constitutes a "dare", which is strictly frowned upon by wikipedia editors. ~~~~ 19:29, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

How could I forget the rigorously enforced Wikipedia:No dares policy! - SimonP 19:31, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: "the 3RR specifically does not apply to groups. If the edit really needs reverting, somebody else will probably do it—and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two competing versions is correct." The three-revert rule applies to individuals, not to each side of a discussion. Each individual may revert up to three times. JYolkowski // talk 19:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I am discussing "proxy editors" not "groups". There is a substantial difference. A group is two or more independant individuals. A proxy editor is an editor who has been asked to perform a task on someone's behalf. The arbitration committee has ruled that proxy editors are to be treated as the same individual if used to circumvent rules. ~~~~ 20:01, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not a proxy editor (nor is Kappa). Anyone on Wikipedia is free to ask anyone else to take a look at an article and make changes if they so desire. I made up my own mind regarding what to do with Matthew 1, and I did that (evidence of that can be found in that SimonP didn't ask me to fix typos and stuff in the article, which I did do). That is not proxy editing. JYolkowski // talk 20:12, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

If you check exactly what SimonP stated on your & Kappa's talk pages, it is very clear that he is asking for a specific edit, not a general "can you take a look at this article". ~~~~ 20:15, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

An edit war doesn't necessarily mean that a NPOV tag is in order. NPOV tags are there to warn the reader that the text that they are reading on that page might not be neutral. In the case of an argument over the inclusion of some source text into an article then it is clearly not a NPOV dispute and so the tag serves no purpose. I'm in the process of going through your contributions and removing the tags. I am not going to revert you, but manually remove the NPOV tags - I have no interest in getting involved in the debate itself but I would caution you to respect the 3RR please. Edit warring acheives little. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke)

Whilst going through your contributions in order to sort out the mistaken NPOV tags I came across this page The meek shall inherit the earth where you have changed a redirect without any explanation and got into an edit war over it. Please please please don't do this. It really is so much better for you to justify the change on the talk page rather than simply revert. Revert wars are very bad things. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:13, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

If anyone types that phrase in, which is unlikely, they aren't going to be looking for an article that tells them that the phrase is "the meek shall inherit the earth", they are most likely going to be looking for the other beatitudes, or a description of the sermon on the mount in general. ~~~~ 07:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ril, I've removed your POV check tag from Church of Christ, Scientist. Although the article has been heavily discussed in the past, and may still be in need of some adjustments, the discussion has been very quiet for the last few months, and I don't see a big red box at the top of the article as justified at this point. If you have any specific qualms with the article, please contribute to the article's Talk page. --LostLeviathan 06:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

POV-check isn't a warning that the article is POV, it is a request for someone to check to see if it is or isn't. So I am adding it again until someone checks it for POV. ~~~~ 07:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

3RR block

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I put it to you that you have been itching to do something like that since you first mistakenly accused me of being User:Ril. ~~~~ 23:22, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I also put it to you that you really ought to fix Wikipedia:Shortpages/Mythology/Egyptian as your block occured before I had managed to correct an edit and now the page is garbled up - the row for Kis should be removed as far as the start of the ==N-Z== section, which is currently inside it. If you do not, then this will remain in a mess for over 24 hours (I've got to go to a dinner with my partner's colleagues in the west end, and the table is booked so late, I probably won't get back before about 1 am (BST) in the morning). If you fail to do this, I have to seriously question whether you are more interested in the exercise of power, than in improving Wikipedia. ~~~~ 23:28, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Further, I have just noted that the other editor in the revert war has used this period of my absence to violate 3RR at Matthew 4. The 4 reverts are [1] [2] [3] [4]. Even handedness requires that you block them as well. I doubt that you will do this, since I doubt your motives, but there still remains a small amount of belief in your possible neutrality, which currently remains not extinguished. ~~~~ 00:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

If there is anyone reading this, please note that someone has, rather ironically, currently vandalised Wikipedia:Three-revert rule (and has also put a fake protection notice on Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi). ~~~~ 00:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked you and warned SimonP about violating the 3RR. I urge you to go to the talk pages rather than revert warring. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks~~~~ 00:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Wikipedians by number of edits

I thought I would mention that there is a historical tag for it. The same thing is done at the Inactive Collaborations of the Week. See this template, this link Wikipedia:COTWs-defunct and there relevant Vfd's. Thanks Falphin 00:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping the VfD would jog one of the people capable of getting the information together to actually do so. So it is a sort of stealth VfD more aimed at getting something done than anything. But I do feel it should go if it isn't updated - I see no point in historical interest pages in the Wikipedia namespace, it would be like keeping government departments that were already defunct and had no purpose. Cough.

I can't see anything wrong with you voting to add the template to the page though. ~~~~ 00:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• The template is used so that it is easy to update once somebody wants to take it up. An example of this is the USSCOTW and USNCOTWs. Falphin 00:56, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better to go through undeleting if that were the case. ~~~~ 00:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• I forgot the last reason which is for historical interest as the tag suggests. Falphin 01:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

That is essentially the reason I disagree with. The Wikipedia namespace is for meta discussion about the Wikipedia. I don't feel self promotion, or self indulgence, is appropriate. ~~~~ 01:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Expansion

Please discuss rather than revert hundreds. You have never responded at Talk:The meek shall inherit the earth, Talk:Matthew 1:1, and now Template:Expansion. This is a bad pattern of behaviour. Simply continuously reverting without discussion is never the way to go. I dislike these edit wars immensely, but I assure you will not get your way simply through bullying. - SimonP 13:06, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Since when did you discuss with people whether the template should go on the talk page or the article? ~~~~ 13:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Also note that you not only broke 3RR on the template by your last edit, but also reverted yourself. ~~~~ 13:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess you're right, discussion is a bad idea. Your model of continuing to revert each other for as many years as it takes is obviously the way to go. - SimonP 13:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I am not the one making the unilateral change before consensus has been reached. I am merely going round undoing your change on this matter which blatently has no concensus for it, until such a time as a concensus is reached. Unilateral action is wrong. Wikipedia operates on consensus. ~~~~ 13:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I have been making these "unilateral" changes for many months now. If there was strong objection don't you think I would have been stopped before. Some others have objected, but after I explained the situation these objections were dropped. - SimonP 13:35, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Look, people don't notice things for ages. I had to put 130 articles up for VFD at once Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karlscherer3 because no-one had noticed them for 2 years (the full list is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions games/list). They were deleted by a 90% majority. Lack of objection for a large period of time does not indicate agreement, it indicates unawareness. ~~~~ 13:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

If you look through my talk archive you will see that a number of people have commented on this issue. If you look at Wikipedia talk:Template messages you will see that this general issue has been discussed on many occasions. This has not been ignored, it's just that not many people care deeply about it, and if you didn't so loathe my articles on Bible verses you wouldn't either. - SimonP 13:43, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

A - you need to fix that link so that it actually points somewhere

A - The majority of people at that discussion do not approve of your change. ~~~~ 14:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

B - I care only about people acting unilaterally, which is wrong. I was actually drawn to it because you changed an article on my watch list, which happened to be Lust (I wrote parts of it - [5], as I was merging together some other articles, including Lechery), and at that time everything I added went automatically on my talk page). It has nothing to do with your behaviour on Bible verses, and everything to do with the fact you seem to think your views are more important that consensus. ~~~~ 13:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to go around and engage in a large-scale, multi-article revert war. Please stop and take the discussion to Wikipedia:Template locations. violet/riga (t) 13:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal Thanks

Thanks for the warm welcome and the useful how-to info. Dave 18:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Response

• A response would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:List of unusual articles. - SimonP 18:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
• A-its a red link. It needs to be blue to get a response.
• B-a lack of stalking would be appreciated. ~~~~ 18:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Bible verses

Hi there! Yes, I've voted at the mass nomination now. However, might I suggest that you open a page on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus to get a broader discussion? As a side point, you wrote that you split your talk page into three parts... might I suggest that you make that a bit clearer? E.g. add a brightly colored box at the top which links to each part? Radiant_>|< 19:44, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I keep having to re-arrange things to fix that. Re the policy - I'd have thought the currently inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible would have been the appropriate place? ~~~~ 20:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Template:summary Oleg Alexandrov 01:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know, thank-you. I didn't make over 6000 edits without finding out. Please note that it is only a guideline. ~~~~ 08:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I know the template I posted is a bit irritable, sorry :) And having over 10,000 edits myself I also know that sometimes edit summaries are not worth the time. However, sometimes they are important, and that just a few of your edits have summaries makes me a bit worried. But enough of bugging you for a Monday. Enjoy wiki-ing! Oleg Alexandrov 13:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Comparative mythology

I have no quarrel with you, good Sir -Ril-, but my edit on this page was not part of a revert war: it was making the link more direct to the current (and correct) title of the article. If the link is going to cause controversy, I will delete it, as it is not very important, but I will not revert your edit until I have cleared this up. I have said it before: I do not want enemies, and I will not start arguments here unless they are necessary. I see no reson why such would be necessary with a good and mature Wikipedian such as yourself. elvenscout742 17:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

A-the article you redirected to was a copy+paste duplicate. This does NOT comply with GDFL, which is COMPULSORY in wikipedia.

B-The original article was at Missing sun motif. Wikipedia naming policy is that articles and namings must be kept at their original form, unless there is consensus (note that a dispute is not a consensus) to make the change. DO NOT CHANGE THE LINK until you have settled the dispute at the article itself. ~~~~ 17:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure about copying and pasting, but I know that the article's orginal name was "Missing Sun myth", before DramGuy stubbornly went against consensus and changed it. Gabrielsimon did the right thing in changing it back, and moments ago you yourself changed the article from its original title against consensus, as DreamGuy would have it. elvenscout742 17:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The article clearly isn't titled "Missing Sun myth" and items in the article should agree with the article title itself, which in this case is "Missing sun motif" - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It is also clearly about a motif rather than a myth. Indeed the first sentence of the original article states that it is a motif rather than stating it is a myth. There is a substantial difference. ~~~~ 21:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It was titled "Missing Sun myth" - I know because I wrote it, and I seem to have been the only one to contribute anything useful to it. Check it's history. I agree that Gabrielsimon's "Missing Sun myth" should be deleted, but the name of the older one should be changed back. A myth can indeed be a motif, so that's why I worded it that way (DreamGuy did not), and I said it was a myth that appeared in many mythologies. DreamGuy has proven on a number of occasions that he does not understand that word and so made it so the sentence does not make sense by changing it to "myth". (He himself was the one to vandalise the article on "Mythology" so that it no longer covered the more common definition of the word, the one that he is not familiar with [6].) elvenscout742 11:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The original file was called "Missing Sun myth." It was moved, contrary to consensus, to "Missing sun motif." Then a new file was created and named "Missing Sun myth" and the contents from the first "Missing," cut & past to this newly created "Missing." Ril, what is the role you are playing in on this subject of the Missing Sun? Contributor, outside view, admin, or DreamGuy supporter? --AI 13:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I noticed while scrolling back up your talk page that you yourself have come into conflict with that particular editor in the past, citing his hypocrisy as I did. Surely you can sympathise with me and those others? elvenscout742 17:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Bearing grudges is immature. ~~~~ 17:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not bearing a grudge. Bearing a grudge would involve DreamGuy no longer being a threat, and the argument being over. China holds grudges. I don't. elvenscout742 17:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Viewing someone as a "threat" is bearing a grudge. ~~~~ 21:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not. He destroys articles, and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. elvenscout742 11:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Elvenscout742, I fix articles, while you attempt to (at least in principle) destroy Wikipedia itself by trying to preserve articles the way you wrote them originally, even when they are easily proven to be wrong. And worse yet you harass other people about it too. Give it a rest and try to work with other people instead of against them. DreamGuy 11:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Elven, viewing an entity as a threat is not the same as bearing a grudge. It takes good judgement, something I think you need to work on, Ril: You misrepresented my claim [7], sent me a warning for something I did not do[8], and incorrectly scrutinized Elvenscout by accusing "original research" when the he was only defending his expertise in a field of knowledge[9]. --AI 13:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

That is original research. ~~~~ 16:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism in Poland

Hi -Ril-. (Now I know how to refer to you, I hope). :-)

Anyway, I've reverted the article to a more NPOV version by Piotrus. Someone has been reverting it to a very POV verison so as to increase the number of delete votes. Feel free to take a second look. Thanks. HKT 22:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Please don't revert the article. The re-write by Piotrus was effectively deleting almost all of the article. The VFD notice clearly prohibits such action. I have added a two-versions template. ~~~~ 22:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

CCHR

You nominated CCHR to be checked for bias. However, if you look at the description of the category that puts it in, you'll read the following:

Please do not flag these articles with this template — which mentions discussion on the talk page — until after you have raised the issue on the talk page.

Would you please complete your edit by raising the specific issue that concerns you on the talk page? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. ~~~~ 08:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Germen

There is already an RfC for the Islamophobia page: do you mean an RfC specific to the user? Axon 10:23, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. There is a section for "general user conduct". ~~~~ 19:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The user was deleting content from his talk page, and I was putting that deleted info into an Archive. I was of the understanding that you cannot remove info from a Talk page unless it's to an archive, though I do stand to be corrected. --Irishpunktom\^talk 22:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

That is not what I was told previously, thank you for the info --Irishpunktom\^talk 23:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

As per your suggestion, I'm putting together a draft RfC against Germen (User:Axon/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Germen). This my first RfC so if you could give it a look over, let me know what you think (do you think I have enough evidence of attempting to settle the dispute?) perhaps endorse it, I would be most grateful. Axon 15:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

That was a draft of the RfC I was writing, but thanks for publishing: I was going to do it today anyway :) Thanks for endorsing it. Axon 09:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew

Rather than reverting my edits on sight without actually considering what is going on, it may interest you to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer. ~~~~ 21:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't revert them on sight; I looked at the edit histories, and made a judgement. I note that I'm not the only person to object to your behaviour (even setting aside your sock-puppet claims which, even if true, don't justify your actions). I also note that your RfC is so far purely personal, having attracted no other signatories, and with the section on attempts to resolve the dispute tellingly omitted. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I only opened the RFC two minutes ago. It is likely to not have any other comments yet. ~~~~ 22:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If you view the edit history, you will see that the only people wanting to keep the article are the increadibly obvious sockpuppets mentioned in the RFC - take a look at their other [pretty non-existant] edits if you don't believe me.

If you further note the content of the article, that Wetman added a merge tag to it, and that it was merged by me, I am not sure what your argument for reverting me is?

~~~~ 22:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I got your link about the RFC for Melissadolbeer and I read it. I only know that she was a difficult editor with Jonadabs and nothing more. I have no concept of the sock puppet thing so I usually don't get involved for that reason, it seems to me those things are hard to tell over the internet. I also don't know enough about the subject Authentic Matthew to decide what should be done with it. Basically, I don't know enough about the user nor do I want to assume those are all sockpuppets, that is up in the air for me. With users like User:striver (who also has a RFC) it was easier for me to tell since I can see the bias in his edits on subjects I know a lot more about. So, I will keep that RFC under watch and see what develops, but I can't contribute anything to it yet. Until reading that I thought she was just a bad editor who didn't source, now I'm not sure. Thanks for alerting me. gren 00:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It was more to do with Jonadabs that I mentioned the link to you. The editing behaviour is very similar, and clearly problematic. You can add examples of the behaviour at Jonadabs onto the RFC. The key to seeing the editors as sockpuppets is not so much the edits they make to Authentic Matthew but the fact that they don't make other edits. ~~~~ 00:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Karl Scherer

How about being bold and simply merging several of them? E.g. the Packing Puzzle could have been merged with Sphere Packing by simply being WP:BOLD, that doesn't require a VFD vote. Radiant_>|< 14:18, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

From previous experience of Slike2, without a vote to confirm the matter, I suspect Slike2 will just revert it. ~~~~ 16:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

My username

I'm sorry, I don't understand what problem you have with my user name. I regret causing anyone any distress, but could you explain how my user name is offensive? John Barleycorn 17:35, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Some people of a certain religious persuasion would find your use of the name of a religious figure that they view as significant to be offensive. It would be equivalent to them to naming yourself User:Jesus or User:Satan. ~~~~ 17:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I am still totally at a loss. My user name is based on the folk song, and has nothing to do with any religious figure. By the way, I have many pagan friends, and have used this nickname for years, because it's similar to my real name. John Barleycorn 18:55, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The folk song is based on an older religious figure. But if you are unaware of this, obviously no harm was meant. ~~~~ 18:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) John Barleycorn 22:29, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

From one sock to another

Yes, that's almost funny - and I suspect the accusation will not do their cause any good in the eyes of others. However, it is good to find that we can agree on something. --Doc (?) 17:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I don't know if that we are that far apart on Historical Jesus - the article as it stands presents a reconstruction - and any one reconstruction is inherently POV. This article should be a record of the various views of mainstream scholars (now and historically).

Yes, that is pretty much what I would have said should have been in the article. ~~~~ 18:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I interprete the rules to say that VfD is for article topics that should not exist, and not on ones that need a complete re-write, but perhaps that is a debatable point. I'm afraid as a Biblical scholar my agenda may differ from yours in that I'd like to see more NPOV biblical articles - not less.

I would like to see on non-noteworthy subjects removed, as Wikipedia becoming "all the information in the world ever" would make the noteworthy ones appear no more significant. E.g. Bob (blackadder) is not sufficiently noteworthy, but if we had it and similar, we would

On the debate over Bible verses - I think that a good many (nowhere near a majority) merit individual articles. Many verses have a history of interpretation and literary and artistic usage independent of their context. Most other should be handled in the article on the book - which if it gets too long should be divided by section (or perhaps chapter) and only as a last resort into verses. My disagreement with you is that I think everything must be taken on its individual merits, and general principles will always have unfortunate consequences at the margins. Particularly when they can be used by those who would like to delete just about everything on the Bible for their own reasons. (I guess my arguments would be almost identical on the issue of text inclusion.)

I agree that some are noteworthy, for example John 3:16, and Jesus wept, but others are not individually so. I certainly do not agree that there are a large number of verses noteworthy in their own individual right. Most should, in my opinion, be discussed together with nearby or related verses at an article discussing the element that is noteworthy, e.g. the Adoration of the Magi, and Genealogy of Jesus, rather than Matthew 1:9, which is ridiculous to discuss on its own.

I think it is important to draw a very big line between what constitutes an encyclopedia, and what constitutes a commentary or concordance. A commentary/concordance really belongs in WikiBooks. Such things discuss pretty much every verse, but an encyclopedia does not - an encyclopedia is only a collection of noteworthy information, not all the information that has been discussed/developed/discovered about everything. e.g. The Encyclopedia Britannica discussed the various significant elements of the bible, but does not duplicate its entire text between these discussions, and does not discuss every verse individually. This is not due to how much space is available, but simply down to only noting things noteworthy. ~~~~ 18:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

See your point - but, 'what constitutes an encyclopedia?'. WP is unique - so I'm not sure that this is self-evident. Matthew 1.9 may not be terribly notable per se (although personaly I'd merge it into 'Matthew's infancy narrative' rather than a generic discussion of the story), and it certainly would not appear in any other encyclopedia, but then nor would a individual high school. So we are in new territory - and I'd argue that individual Bible verses have a more general interest than much of the junk in here. But, having said that, I don't think that verse articles are usually the best way of presenting Biblical interpretations - and I don't care for the principle of a article on every verse - any more than I care for deleting them in principle. --Doc (?) 19:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would guess that "what constitutes an encyclopedia" would be encyclopedia, and "what constitutes a commentary or concordance" would be commentary and concordance. N.b. Matthew 1:9 is a genealogy rather than part of the infancy narrative (it isn't a narrative, just a list). Id argue that "individual Bible verses have a more general interest" is not generally true, but an opinion resulting from Limited Geographic Scope. ~~~~ 19:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If I may offer some friendly advice - I think you are harming your causes by fighting on too may 'biblical' fronts at once. It looks to some like a crusade and that will tend to polarise the debate between 'pro-' and 'anti-' Bible people (yuk, I hate that expression, but you know what I mean). In those circumstances, few are listening to the finer points of the debate. Cheers and happy editing. --Doc (?) 18:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a cause per se. Certain bible related articles created by SimonP were on VfD when I was adding Karlscherer3's spam to VfD, and after investigation,

• • I realised that there was a larger issue than just the one article that was listed (i.e. all the verses).
  • Then I noticed that SimonP was filling them all with the text of the bible, rather than discussion of it, which brought about the "should it contain a whole chapter or not" issue.
  • Historical Jesus happened because I was checking up on someone's edits as their behaviour struck me as possibly inappropriate, and I noticed that the article almost entirely duplicated another, thus was a POV fork.
  • Authentic Matthew was something I was merging at the time, as I was going through the "what is listed for merging" category for a bit, for a change from "new pages". Then I noticed that there was heavy sockpuppet behaviour on the article trying to preserve it, which flashed "original research" alarms in my head. So I put it up for VfD when Mel Etitis stepped in on the side of the sockpuppets merely because Mel seems to have a vendetta against me (still haven't figured out why - the only thing I can think of is that Mel hates my username, which is ridiculous, and would be very immature), since it was the only solution when you have sockpuppets + an-admin-who-hates-me on the article.

~~~~ 18:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historical Jesus

Your proposal makes sense to me; I'll change my vote. I hope it does get re-written, it's an interesting topic. Cheers, Fernando Rizo 20:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing New Testament view on Jesus' life to my attention. I don't know how I missed that. -Acjelen 20:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Melissadolbeer

Sorry, but I'm not interested. I find the argumentation so far unconvincing - have you tried talking to her? Radiant_>|< 09:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Someone doesn't like you

This guy spammed my talk page, several others, and has added a poorly-formatted arbcom request to the queue. Just thought you'd like to know. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 14:41, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. ~~~~ 18:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"Keep or merge"

You asked about my vote on the Biblical verses. I said "keep or merge" because I think either is equally acceptable. Clearly we need to cover these topics; I don't see it as important whether our granularity of articles is the verse, the chapter, or the book. If there is enough to be said about a single verse to merit an article, fine. If not, group them sanely. I'm certainly not personally interested in reading through the couple of dozen articles specifically listed in that VfD and deciding the merits of each.

It seems to me to be exactly analogous to schools. Some individual schools merit articles; others can be handled as part of a school system, or even a city. Given the listing of these together, the issue is presumably the principle, not whether each of these individual articles has merit. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:44, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I have no intention of looking through these articles one by one and deciding which are meritorious. If that is the purpose of the vote, they should not be up there as a batch. I, personally, have little stake in which particular Bible verses have individual articles. If you feel that invalidates my vote, feel free to cite this comment and ask to have my vote invalidated. Plenty that is notable enough to deserve mention in Wikipedia is not notable enough to deserve its own article. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:10, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Further remark: even an Bible verse that appears prima facie to be insignificant, might merit an article. It might (for example) represent the only occurrence in the Bible of a particular Hebrew or Greek word, or its translation into English (or another language) in different versions of the Bible might be controversial. In the O.T., it might have Kabbalistic significance. Someone might have written a notable meditation on it. Etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:17, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Suggest more readable sig

Just wanted to let you know that the sig that I think you are using could be confusing, especially for new users, because it contains no recognizable characters (letters or numbers) and especially because it appears to be the (unexpanded) special Wiki code for automatically inserting a signature. Perhaps you would consider something with at least initials, a word or phrase. Thanks for listening. DavidH 23:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what is so wrong with the signature, Eequor has a similarly non-roman-alphabet signature. If it was the "automatically insert signature" code, then it would not already be linked (it wouldn't appear as a linked phrase), so it is easy to tell them apart. Using the special Wiki code for signatures is unstable, so not really practical. ~~~~ 07:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Q

Thanks for the explanation but do you know who, exactly added me to the list/named me as a party to the dispute? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

missing sun myth complaints

the VFD is not on grounds that are appropriate, because the article was altered without consensus by user DreamGuy, thus making your complaint moot. Gabrielsimon 08:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what grounds a VFD is put up for. Anything may be VFD'd for any reason. The purpose is to determine the community consensus on what should be done with the article, not why. ~~~~ 10:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Warning ignored

DO NOT REMOVE VFD NOTICES DURING A VFD.

This is a violation of policy, and if you continue to do it, it will get you blocked from editing. ~~~~ 07:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Your warning is uncalled for. I did not remove the VfD. Why haven't you warned Jtkiefer? He is the one who initially removed the VfD and entered a redirect? [10] --AI 10:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If that was true, then explain this - [11] ~~~~ 16:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake. I take back my statements about this. --AI 22:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sentait

From your User page, it's clear your a linguist and a mythology expert, and your reserach on the subject is certainly more in depth than mine. I have changed my vote. John Barleycorn 21:57, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content?

Ril, my impression is that you want to ensure Wikipedia is encyclopedic and you work toward getting questionable information VfD'd, merged and/or redirected. Can you take a look at this crazy article: Tin-foil hat. In my opinion, it hardly encylopedic compared to some you have been focusing on. I invite your input in the discussion at Talk:Tin-foil hat. Thank you. --AI 07:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal comments

P.s. Al, you will read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and desist from commenting against Antaeus. ~~~~ 08:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes I re-read it upon your suggestion. I will not make personal comments against Antaeus. Thank you for the correction. --AI 10:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Here is a "personal comment" :) for you: For the sake of civility any suggestions which are not about content should be sent to personal talk pages instead of in article talk pages. Personal suggestions to a user in an article's talk page qualifies as a personal attack. In article discussion pages, we should not personally address other users on issues that are not content related. --AI 11:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Instructing editors not to make personal attacks when they have done so is not itself a personal attack. ~~~~ 19:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Instructing them in an article's talk page qualifies as a personal attack according to Wikipolicy. You should instruct them on their personal talk page. --AI 08:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

A trivial note, it seems to me RfC only results in "instructions" (comments) :) Aloha --AI 10:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Template:Userref

Hi. I saw that you had created this template. It duplicates exactly the content of {{User}}, so I have redirected it there. On a slightly different matter, would it be possible for you to change your signature? I find it highly distracting, and it would make impersonation of you easier. Cheers, smoddy 21:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Template user is a bit awkward as Ive seen many people use a colon rather than a pipe, which causes an entire user page to be duplicated. I was subst-ing template vandal, but they recently added a block link onto it, so I created userref to have a template without this. ~~~~ 07:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

R.e. my signature. Its not that easy to duplicate - it isn't quite four tildes - and people can duplicate signatures easily. E.g. smoddy 07:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I see your point about {{user}}, and I presume you are half- (or wholly-!) referring to Violet/riga on RFAr. You can still use {{userref}}, but I'm far too lazy... I must agree about Netoholic's change to {{vandal}}, which makes life far easier for admins! As to the signature matter, I guess I didn't really mean impersonation, in retrospect. I think I really meant for another user to adopt the same signature, and the style to be confusing. I just happen to have the opinion that a signature should show something useful, rather than what appears to have originated in making a point about the system. Cheers, smoddy 11:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Your signature

Please stop being a jackass and signing your name with four tildes to keep people from referring to you the way you sign your posts. If you are a sensible person, this simple request should be enough to stop it. If not, ... Gene Nygaard 13:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

I'm looking over the arbitration case and noticed this edit. [12]. Please do us a favor by not removing other people's comments. If they put them in the wrong place then move them to the right place rather than deleting them outright. It makes life much easier for us. Cheers! Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

N. b.

Can you explain to me what "N. b." means and why you seem to preface almost everything you say with it? Tomer ^TALK 17:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

It is a standard english phrase. Urm, its very widely used. It basically means "nota bene" (a latin phrase), originates from legal latin, and has entered modern everyday english (always as "n.b.", most people wouldn't recognise "note bene"). It means "note well", and is a way of saying "please note that", with minimal aggression. Its english usage is most similar to "by the way...", only without quite as much frivoulousness. ~~~~ 17:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Its one of those very common phrases like "etc." and "terra firma" that everyone uses, but hardly anyone realises is latin, or what it translates as. ~~~~ 18:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I recognized it, but couldn't quite place it, and it was driving me buggy.  :-p Tomer ^TALK 18:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew

You have taken ownership of this VfD, and have been deleting other editor's comments and moving them to the Talk page (while leaving your own comments – including personal attacks and unsunstatiated statements about sock-puppetry – in place). The admin who closes the VfD is capable of sorting out what to take into account and what not; I've discussed this with other editors annd admins, and the consensus is that you should stop. I've tried to revert your last set of deletions, and have placed a warning to whichever admin closes the VfD as to what has been happening. My own view, which I shall be putting to other admins, is that the VfD process is now seriously compromised by your activity, and that it should be restarted. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Please pay attention to what I have actually done.

• Melissadolbeer in the same edit as adding that section also deleted and moved around other people's comments and votes, I was reverting this.
• There is no catering for a "defense of the article" section in VFD policy. Comments go with votes, and extensive discussion on the talk pages. Putting an extensive discussion on the VFD page itself is trolling.
• Calling a claim a probable lie is not a personal attack. It is not a comment about the person making the claim, but about the claim itself. It is a claimal attack. I.e. a normal counterargument. The only alternative to calling something so black+white a lie is to say it is the truth, which I do not think it is. This is not a personal attack by any measure.
• It is standard behaviour on VFD to point out likely sockpuppets
• You have repeatedly behaved in a manner suggesting you have a vendetta against me over the period of the last 4 months. I still have no idea why.

~~~~ 00:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

1. You removed a great number of comments (while leaving your own in place); comments are commonly included in VfDs, and it isn't your place to remove them. (See the discussion at Talk:Votes for deletion for a discussion of this.)
2. You're misusing the word "trolling" — and the comments by other people that you removed were no worse than your own.
3. Saying that someone is lying about a relative's serious illness is a personal attack, and an unpleasant one.
4. True, and this is done by pointing out that the vote is a User's first edit, or that they're only edited a few times before; you simply say (without verifying it with a developer) that someone is a sock-puppet. in one case, the person involved explained that he was Melissdolbeer's husband, but you simply assumed that he was lying (and made another of your sarcastic attacks).
5. I have no vendetta, but your behaviour has been very poor since you opened your present account, and so as a responsible admin. I've kept my eye on you; my caution has been justified on a number of occasions since. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

A strong suggestion

-Ril-, can I strongly suggest that you do NOT put Authentic Matthew back up for VfD immediately. I fear that your involvement in the unseemly mess of the previous VfD is likely to prejudice many voters. I also think that your overreaction to the possible sockpuppets was counterproductive, actually making your opponents look like innocent victims. Although I'm pretty sure that the article should go, I stayed out of it, as the personal temperatures were rising too high. I'm going to check some facts, over the next week or so, and IF I'm still of the same opinion, I'd be willing to nominate it myself, accepting User:Ta bu shi da yu's offer to police it. My condition would be that you agree only to vote and do nothing else. --Doc (?) 09:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)