User talk:Essjay

File:Grace Light & Peace.jpg

Grace, Light, and Peace

From the One Who was, Who Is, and Who Is to Come:

Grace, Light, and Peace be with you all.

---

Please feel free to leave me a message. I will generally respond on your talk page rather than here, however, I keep talk pages I edit on my watchlist for around a week, so if you prefer, we can continue a discussion there.

I appreciate hearing from individuals who have found mistakes (spelling, etc.) in my posts; these turn up all to often, as I tend to type very fast and not catch spelling mistakes my edits. If you find an error, you may get an indulgence. (WikiSins only!)

As a theology professor and scholar of Roman Catholicism, I am happy to answer questions about the Church. Be warned that my answers to questions about the Church always reflect the Church's official position, but are often long!

It's important to remember: I'm not a Catholic, I'm a scholar of Catholicism.

---

User:Essjay/Status I am an Administrator; if you need my help, please leave a message. I am also on MSN Messenger as essjay-wiki (Hotmail) and AIM as Essjay Wiki; you may contact me there. Please note the indicator to the side; if you see a red stoplight and "I'm out", then I am not currently online; if you leave a message, your request will not be answered until I return. Before leaving me a request, please read my administrator action policy. If you are requesting an action regarding a specific user, please use the {{vandal|Username}} template.

---

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX August 31, 2024, 08:43 (UTC) · Directory · · One · Two · Three · Four · Five · · Archives · To-Do · Status · I frequently archive my talk page to keep it short.Enter the Archives

---

Thanks!

Essjay, you are the best! Thank you so much. My user page looks great! I only hope that I can help you out one of these days! Thanks again! Psy Guy 16:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

closing vfd entries

Are you still closing VfD discussions? If so, which log-day are you working on? I'm about to start closing some, and I don't us to crash. Joyous (talk) 16:13, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Violating VFD results

An admin has re-created the VFD'd article Criticism of Islam on 1st August 2005. You previously redirected it and protected the redirect to support the result of the VFD. Could you please repeat this? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 16:33, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

There was discussion of this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Criticism_of_Islam. From the page histories, I can't tell what is going on; I can't figure out if it is a reposting of the other content (it looks different) or if it is a new article, which I don't feel comfortable deleting without having a discussion first. What I will do is bring it up at AN; since I'm rather confused, it would probably be a good idea for you to post your thoughts there to help other admins figure out what is going on. -- Essjay · Talk 16:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Pardon me. I can understand why you might feel this nomination might not go through, but I promise you it was not in "bad faith" as you put it. Any check of my editing history and contributions can assure you of my integrity. In any case, you yourself admitted that you dont have the proper authority to remove nominations early, so I would appreciate it if you please stopped. Rainbowwarrior1977 17:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The issue has been raised at the Administrator's Noticeboard. It is now up to the decision of other admins, the bureaucrats, and the arbitrators. Essjay · Talk 18:18, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Deleting me and other matters

Firstly, to the PDF file: I have absolutely no idea. I tried restoring and deleting again, but to no avail. I don't get the PDF warning (yes, I'm in FF too), so I don't know what's going on there. As to deleting me, I guess I can but smile and accept my fate. However, if I'm going to be drawn and quartered, does that make me a Wiki-martyr? Do I get a place in the vaults of the Protestant Church of Wikipedia? Cheers, [[smoddy]] 21:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

That would be very nice. May I be Dean of the College of Cardinals? Please? Pretty please? (Of course, I guess it would be the General Synod in a Protestant church...) [[smoddy]] 22:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Woot. (I've always wanted to say that) Look, just because you're Peter, you can't just go around changing the name however you want. But, nevertheless, I like the simple Catholic Church of Wikipedia (forgetting the Anglo- and Roman wings -- ecumenical concord, what bliss!). I'll see about putting the Ordinary into Latin, as befits such a noble and historic organisation. Goodnight, father. [[smoddy]] 22:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Where does it say non-admins can't delete in the policy? I also replied on Red's talk. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 03:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

So I can close Keep ones? Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 03:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Banoffee Pie. See if I did it right, if not, please close it yourself. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 03:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Michael Salla

No need to undelete Michael Salla--stuff that needs be added to exopolitics can be done without the article which I will do in a day or so. Marskell 03:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but if you want any of it, its no trouble to undelete. -- Essjay · Talk 04:01, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Rainbowwarrior1977

Thanks for responding my comments. In the future I'll ignore him (I've already removed his comments from my talk page) and I'll avoid rising to the bait in the future. Thanks again! -Soltak 19:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• I endorsed the RfC, thanks for the great job putting it together. -Soltak 00:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Rainbowwarrior1977/Musachachado RFC

Greetings, I saw your RFC against this user and was surprised there was no mention of his frequent abuse of the VfD process as an attempted form of dispute resolution. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fatherland (novel), Talk:Ainu people/VFD nomination on July 16 2005, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anglo-saxon hunting (User:CelineDionFan82 is another one of his sock puppets), and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Túpac Amaru II (User:4.174.0.193 is another sock... see Talk:Ainu people for them all!). Should this be added to the RFC somehow? I'm not familiar with the process so I'm not sure if this would be considered part of the same dispute. Thanks, Thatdog 00:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: Sounds okay to me! - Thatdog 00:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Rainbowwarrior1977's RfC

Hey, thanks for letting me know. I signed my name, but I'm going to be away for a week, starting tomorrow. So, I don't know if you want me to add any specific comments before I go. I wouldn't want to sign it, then abandon it. Ryan 00:49, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ralph Woodrow article

Dear SJ

I am somewhat new to Wikipedia (though i have lurked often) and have a variety of interests -

one of which is religion.

While discussing religious issues on messageboards the topic of pagan roots of Christianity arose as well as the typical invectives espoused by Alexander Hislop and his 'Two Babylons'

* there are articles fully describing his views on Wikipedia

the articles refer to RALPH WOODROW (a protestant minister) who wrote a book AGREEING with HISLOP that Catholicism (and to a great extent) Christianity is founded on Pagan Babylon

I am sure that you are aware of these discussions ...

I have attempted twice to place AN ARTICLE ON RALPH WOODROW at the appropriate link in Wikipedia

The first attempt was rejected because someone feared it infringed upon copyright
(though I had Mr. Woodrows permission to post it)

the second/third attempt is where you came in ~ and centered around the discussion as to whether the article was well written and 'encyclopedic' enough as well as whether the author was of enough note to 'deserve' an article ...

Mr. Woodrow is well-known with over 500,000 books sold and is often quoted as an opponent
of the 'all is pagan' view -- His name invokes thousands of 'hits' on google or yahoo.

I am a bit perplexed after reading your credentials as to why you removed the article on Mr. Ralph Woodrow.

The INITIAL article was FULLY EDITED and TOTALLY RE-WRITTEN and POLISHED so as to follow the style of the Wikipedia site

The FINAL article that you deleted (based on others earlier votes PRIOR to re-write) was I believe, finally in an acceptable form.

The TOPIC is important, to both Christians and non-christians alike and given that Mr. Hislops views are extensively represented on Wikipedia, is all the more reason that VALID CRITICISM of that view be also represented. Wikipedia itself notes that RALPH WOODROW objects to HISLOPS views - yet the LINK to WHY remains blank.

I appeal to your Wikipedian sense of fair play and ask that you please re-consider the RECENT DELETION of the article on RALPH WOODROW. Would you UN-DELETE the article on WOODROW.

If by some chance, you feel that the subject does indeed warrant inclusion, but feel that the existing article is lacking... I would impose upon you further to ask that you personally 'tweak' it, so that it would meet with your (and Wikipedia's) approval.

I stand ready to assist in any way and have been in contact with the now elderly Mr. Woodrow who is willing to approve any reasonable representation of his views.

God Bless

Michael@filecastle.com

---

M-filecastle 02:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. As I said there, it was the consensus on VfD to delete, and I was just carrying out the orders of the people. I have no control over the decision that is made, and cannot disregard it. -- Essjay · Talk 02:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

i hate to bother you further but several aspects of this process bother me

one - it (article) was hastily voted for deletion by a few members who seemingly had no particluar interest in the subject
Their comments indicated that they had NO KNOWLEDGE of the topic, the authors etc ...

Even if their underlying basis 'poorly written' was the reason,
the article was ENTIRELY RE-WRITTEN by the time you actually saw it
and bore virtually NO RESEMBLANCE to the original attempt.
ON WHICH MOST OF THE VOTES TO DELETE WERE BASED.

Several of the posters voting 'delete' indicated that the article should/could be re-written instead of deleted

another poster - not me - began this effort and i added to their work ...

I think the FINAL ARTICLE was acceptable.

Wikipedia 'rules' indicated that reagarding the MEMBERS voting
VFD is not democraticand that ultimately decisions on deletion are at the discretion of Administrators.

I am not savy enough (yet) to place the article in the 'please undelete' category

Could you assist by placing it there or provide the proper link?

IF THE ARTICLE WERE 'TWEAKED' even further by someone (such as yourself) and resubmitted... I believe that it would pass 'muster' and finally provide 'Wikipedians' with the broader understanding that this topic so richly deserves.

It is simply not fair that the CRITICISM of the FALSELY held view that Catholicism and Christianity are fundamentally pagan in origin stands un-refuted.

I dont mean to additonally appeal to your espoused Christian beliefs - but considering that you've shared them on your bio -

it would also seem to be a concern you yourself might hold.

Woodrow shows that Hislops false analogies make virtually any and all aspects of Christianity appear to be of pagan origin.

Your experiece here, coupled with your knowledge of the subject would make you a good pro-ponent of the need for such an article.

Please ~

• reconsider for undelete (since orignial objection was re-written)
• reconsider for undelete (since early voters did not know topic)
• reconsider for undelete (since subject has merit)
• reconsider for undelete (citing Administrative discretion)
• reconsider for undelete (place in VOTE for UNDELETE)

My answer is at your talk page. Also, please sign all posts with ~~~~. -- Essjay · Talk 03:53, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Response to RfC

Essjay, please take notice that I filed my response to your RfC. Thank you and have a good evening.Rainbowwarrior1977 04:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Loging in

There are hundreds of us who use this terminal in this place.

Perhaps you could explain to me how it is possible to log in properly, identify myself more publicly and actually make contributions to many of these erroneous entries. I look forward to your response.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.247.77 (talk • contribs)

No problem. Go to Special:Login (or the link at the top of every page that says Create Account/Log In). Fill in a username and password (and an email if you would like to be able to use the "email this user" feature or recover lost passwords) and voila, you will be logged in. Just remember to make sure you log in each time you use the site. -- Essjay · Talk 06:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Header

Sorry about the AIAV header; innocent mistake. I'll try not to make any in the future. -- Essjay · Talk 10:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

That's ok, thanks! Dan100 (Talk) 10:24, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Userpage

Thanks for your quick reply ... I'll delete what I posted and repost in the user space (I thought I was in the user space in the first place). I do appreciate your comments. Alex de Carvalho

Message

Now you're requesting messages, honestly. ;-) Rob Church 14:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Buwahahahahahaha....orange bar of death! Rob Church 14:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It has been vanquished! I have defeated the Orange Bar of Death! Glory to Jimbo in the Highest! *Does a victory dance on the grave of the OBOD* -- Essjay · Talk 14:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

You have new messages that are no longer displayed in a format that elevates your blood pressure.

Thanks be to God, I never have to look at that blasted thing again! -- Essjay · Talk 14:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

How was Rainbowwarrior1977 disruptive this morning? His only edits today seem to be responses to the RfC against him. Granted, he's certainly not handling it diplomatically, but he is not being disruptive in the sense of vandalising articles or making pointless VfD's (unless you can point to sockpuppet activity of that type). In any event, it is not merely the quality of his law-related contributions, but the fact that he earnestly points to them in his defense that makes me think that he will behave better in the future. This is someone who knows how to make positive contributions, and I have high hopes that he has discovered that the rewards of so doing outweigh any benfits to be derived from disrupting the project. Cheers! -- BDAbramson ^talk 15:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Granted, that's not the best behavior, but tasteless posts on user talk pages are mostly harmless. I concede that he has made some genuinely disruptive edits (including his vfd of Ainu people and his faux admin nomination), that he has often comported himself in an abrasive manner, and the sockpuppetry is troubling. Nevertheless, I choose to maintain my belief that he is on a path to reform. -- BDAbramson ^talk 16:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Disruption?

I am quoting a passage you left on someone else's user page. You said: Sorry, not this morning; when you spend hour after hour here, it begins to blend together. I was thinking of this, this, and this, all yesterday, as well as the RfA incident which occurred on Saturday. I can respect if we simply have differing opinions; I think an editor who has more disruptive edits than positive ones, and who admits to being the sockpuppet of a permablocked user, is a clear-cut liability, regardless of his few-and-far between good edits (which, by the way, anyone with a copy of Blacks Law Dictionary could have made). -- Essjay · Talk 16:00, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Why oh yes, those edits are simply damning evidence. As if responding to some sawed-off user getting all snippy over my dating an English chick in the 90's is being "disruptive." Remember, it was Soltak that started harrassing me about the Cambridge connexion, not the other way around. I understand that you wiki-clique members like to beat up on the newcomers, as is evidenced by your many harrassing posts on my page and others.

You are furthermore off-centre in your statement that "anyone with a Black's law dictionary" could have made those edits. First of all, I haven't opened my copy of Black's Law Dictionary in years, and second of all, using a legal reference without legal training is pointless since one wouldn't be able to contexutualise the information. For instance, just because a layman can look up "reciprocal negative servitudes" and how they differ from "negative covenants running with the land" does not mean that he can then coherently explain how these might fit into contesting non-conforming property use, who has standing to bring a suit contesting such, and whether the appropriate remedy is injunctive or legal. That's why there are such things as schools, degrees, and bars to pass, and not just any yahoo with a legal reference guide can intelligently discuss the law, thank you.

Oh by the way, that chick from Cambridge was planning on becoming a Barrister at the Inns of Court...isn't that simply grand?Rainbowwarrior1977 18:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)