User talk:CheeseDreams

Multi-licensed into the public domain
I agree to multi-license my eligible text contributions, unless otherwise stated, under Wikipedia's copyright terms and into the public domain. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions in the public domain, please check the multi-licensing guide.

A quick note

Just a short note to say that I have been invited to the vatican for some reason (according to the letter, the pope does this to about 20 random people each year, which doesn't really explain why they choose who they do at all. Oh, ive just noticed on the letter that its connected to some Jesuit thing), and I'm not going to turn a free trip to Rome in winter down, so I won't be around for a few days.

I might try to do some research in the (rather famous) library while I am there, although it is notorious for deliberately not having a proper catalogue, and not letting you look at a book unless you already know what the book is.

P.s. before any of you think of this as an opportunity to push your POV, you should bear in mind that I have chosen to tell you this, and have ulterior motives for doing so. CheeseDreams 00:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're so full of crap! This is just some idiot way for you to be "saved by the bell"! Goodbye and good riddance, ye compulsive liar! Piglet 04:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To be saved by the bell, you have to be saved from something darling. Please choose your aphorisms more carefully next time. CheeseDreams 00:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have warned Nasse to stop the abuse. I might get into conflict with you CheeseDreams, but I don't agree with you being abused by personal attacks. At least my arguments with you are to do with content. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oooo. Spooky! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. Share some pictures when you get back. :-D Johnleemk | Talk 16:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They wouldn't let me take pictures inside, due to restrictions on flash photographs. Ill need to find a library to scan in the rest. There are some lovely ones of venice (where my boyfriend took me since we were already in Italy, though its a long train journey, and it doesn't smell very pleasantly when you get there - something to do with sewers).

While this is a little late for you to try, but if you ever get the chance see if they have any Stephen King. You may not know it but he has made a deal with The Devil(tm) to have his books shelved everywhere. Trust me, I know. Wjw 05:45, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't really get allowed to look at much in the library, as they are quite particular about you knowing exactly what it is you are looking for, which is a bit unfair, and I didn't see any popular fiction in there, it is more of a research library. CheeseDreams 00:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard of this tradition. Pretty neat! And to think that after living four years in Rome, I never got to talk to the Pope... (Of course there are other benefits to living in Rome.) Mpolo 08:59, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

He looks more dead than I was expecting, and he isn't very good at speaking. I suppose its a bit like speaking to the queen would be, it was all very polite, but you get asked mindless questions like what do you do for a living etc. and never get to ask anything interesting because the Cardinals and the secretaries and things are quite clever at changing the subject. The bed was nice though, and some of it is quite elegant.

Arbitration

Just dropping you a note to say that the Arbitration Committee has accepted your request concerning User:Rienzo. The arbitration proceedings are available at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rienzo, and you may add evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rienzo/Evidence. Ambi 00:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

STOP placing the "BPOV" template on Bible pages!

CheeseDreams: Please STOP placing your newly-minted {{BPOV}} template under your adapted new User name of User:Cheese dreams. They will be removed. You cannot make such a sweeping template-SPAM of all Hebrew Bible articles with your own self-invented comments without broader discussion and agreement from the many editors who contribute to Hebrew Bible articles and others involved in this area of scholarship. IZAK 14:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you pay attention, you will notice that I only applied it to certain of the articles, and by no means all. Some articles I find quite balanced. For example, Book of Esther. I very carefully observed which articles were biased, and which were not.

Further if you look at the contributions under the User name User:Cheese dreams, you will see it has been in existance for a while now. Probably at least one month.

So please stop your abusive jumping to conclusions, and check the facts before you make sweeping statements. CheeseDreams 00:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.s. the whole point about templates like NPOV is that they are added when someone percieves a bias, and are not a consensus addition. You don't go to the talk page and discuss for ages is this article NPOV because that is how you solve the issue, not how you judge whether to put the template on. CheeseDreams 00:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom temporary order

"1) Pending a final decision in this matter CheeseDreams is banned from editing all articles which relate to Christianity. This ban is based on aggressive POV editwarring as illustrated by the edit history of Historicity_of_Jesus."

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CheeseDreams#Temporary_injunction. --mav 19:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked her for 24 hours. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please explain why you have blocked me. I edited Zero Christianity articles.

I edited articles relating to Judaism. I also edited talk pages. And templates. None of these things are Christian articles. CheeseDreams 00:46, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Judaism articles are related to Christianity. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:11, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Islam articles are related to Christianity, as are Mar Thoma articles, articles on Missionaries and on Slavery (and thus the history of Africa), articles on debt relief, witchfinding, the reformation, the english civil war, european history, politics, culture, law, and much more besides. "Christianity related" covers about 90% of Wikipedia. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Given your past history with CD, it probably would have been better to get an un-involved admin (are there any by now? :-) to do any enforcement needed, TBSDY. Noel (talk) 20:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why not get John Kenney to do it? He's apparently above the law so he'd be a good choice. Dr Zen 03:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think Slrubenstein would have been a better choice. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just one thing. Is User:John Kenney the sock puppet used by User:Jimbo Wales, thus explaining why people are so afraid to touch him. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BPOV templates

I have added your BPOV templates to Votes for Undeletion: [1]. - Vague | Rant 10:50, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. CheeseDreams 02:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As you will have noted, Cheese, I'm speaking up for your templates (as well as for you generally). I think your POV should be represented in the Christianity articles and I don't think it's right that you should be silenced by the campaign against you. However, you haven't met the norms of the community (and I know you know that) and, although I think I understand your reasons for that (I have assumed good faith and believe you genuinely hold the views you are defending and are not trolling for the hell of it), I do think you should attempt to moderate yourself a bit, if only because not doing so will prevent you from being able to tell what you see as the truth at all. I understand how difficult it is to talk about these subjects with people who simply do not accept even the possibility that their views can be wrong but you are obliged to try to do so without rancour. Find a way, Cheese. I for one will support you in what you're doing if you make that effort. If you keep on the track you're on though, I'm going to be concluding that you are only here to stir the shit. I am not in any way suggesting that you moderate your views, cease to include your content (although I do suggest being more temperate in removing others') or suffer in silence the treatment you've had from some of the other editors here, not just from Rienzo/Nasse/Lady Tara but from SLRubenstein and John Kenney, to name two whose conduct has not been anything to be proud of. But I am suggesting that you try to walk within the bounds a little. Insist they match the same standards. Insist that their sources are of the same quality. Insist they treat you with civility. All of that is within the bounds. Stop tagging articles, because even though you might be right, that is just going to cause you trouble. Make forks in your user space and argue for them. Remember, there are neutral editors who are no fonder of the bias in those articles than you are.Dr Zen 07:11, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I do appreciate them. Rienzo/Nasse/Lady Tara are being dealt with now. Slrubenstein will happen shortly. I haven't decided about dealing with John Kenney properly yet, I would like to see how he/she reacts to what happens with Slrubenstein.

I knew full well that adding the "actually there is quite a lot of evidence against Jesus" information would result in a campaign against me. Which is why I created the CheeseDreams accounts. I have others where I edit other articles. The point of the CheeseDreams account is to put the information there, and take the heat off the other editors (some of whom at a later stage will be me) who support it.

Unfortunately, I have an inbuilt tendency to fight fire with fire. I do not abide evil, nor allow it to continue existance where I see it. It is done now, and they can't prevent the truth from being true. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apology over blocking you

My apologies to you for blocking out of order. I was under the impression that the temporary injunction had started then, but it appears that it had not. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Accepted. Thank-you. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages

You know, if you have an issue with what I have to say to other users, you should have some guts and leave a message on my own talk page. I was talking to Dr Zen about your actions because he sent me a message. Responding on his talk page with comments directed to me are NOT acceptable. If I hadn't continued corresponding with Dr Zen (who is a very reasonable user, you should know) I would never have seen your messages. Oh, and incidently: I refuse to speak to your sock puppets. In fact, I seriously wonder why you need them. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't watch your talk page, and I always respond to comments where they are written, rather than respond to a comment in the Times by scrawling on the wall behind the bikesheds. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You refuse to speak to Cheesedreams, Cheese Dreams, Cheese-Dreams (new), or Cheese dreams?

Thats a bit silly isn't it? They are blatently me. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you wonder why they exist. Consider whose contribution lists you and others are watching. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm contemplating asking for them to be merged, as they have served their purpose now. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee ruling

The Arbcom case against you has closed. Effective 13 January 2005, you are to be banned from editing Wikipedia in general for eight days ending 21 January 2005, and shall be prohibited from editing Christianity-related articles for a period of one year, ending 13 January 2006. You are also restricted to two reverts per article in any given twenty-four hour period. If you can demonstrate a pattern of editing with civility, and without serious conflict, for the next six months, you can apply for a lifting of the above year long ban. For further details, please read the final decision of the case. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 00:03, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Am I banned now then? I ought not to be editing in that case I suppose. Maybe someone should actually try to block me and my other accounts? CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite

Rhobite also misused his admin powers with me.This page gives his victims the chance to respond. Ollieplatt 08:27, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Someone" has removed the page in question. Ive been packing my stuff up so that I can move to a house with my boyfriend, so I haven't really been paying attention, otherwise I would have certified the page for you. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia vote

I urge you to reconsider your vote on the inclusion of Akrotiri and Dhekelia as dependencies in Europe at Template talk:Europe. The CIA World Factbook now lists them [2] as dependencies of the UK and has separate entries for the two ([3] & [4].) They also have this note posted on the main page [5]:

Recent confirmation that the United Kingdom Government administers the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus as dependencies (and not as lease areas like the US Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba) has required a changing of their status and their addition to the Factbook as new entities.

Thanks. —Cantus…☎ 06:12, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I DO NOT consider the CIA world factbook either reliable or unbiased. CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just Wondering

If God is truly infinite doesn't that imply that it transcends personality and is beyond what humanity considers what is and is not an entity? I mean, we take the concept of a human, and expand that to an infinite size and then say there, that is God. I'm tired and just thought I'd ask and no, I don't mean this as a flamebait or some sort of attack, I am truly wondering (I always have to say that before I'm yelled at). Wjw 09:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That depends on what you mean by infinity, for example, cardinality implies that there are numbers bigger than infinity. In terms of physics, infinite is still within a tangible construct, being space-time, which also has the property of (if fully viewed) being static. It also depends on what you mean by personality, for example, Jungian philosophy holds that there is a collective conciousness, which could quite easily compose God. Islam holds that each person is an aspect of God, and thus God is the sum total of all humanity, together with a few other things (which may or may not exist), and thus there is no issue of transcendence.

Blocked

I blocked your alternate account User:Cheese-Dreams permanently, since you violated the Arbitration Committee 8 day ban on editing. Please remember that violating the sanctions against you is a serious matter, and will probably result in longer bans if you continue. In the future, please use your main account for editing. Rhobite 22:50, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone actually blocked the main account. It isn't listed under the Ipblocklist at the moment, which is quite disappointing. CheeseDreams 23:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Archive