User talk:John Carter: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 505: | Line 505: | ||
You may wish to comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Olaf_Stephanos here] as I have filed an arbitration enforcement case against [[User:Olaf Stephanos]]. As a relatively uninvolved outside editor I feel that your opinions will be valuable. [[User:Colipon|Colipon]]+<small>([[User talk:Colipon|Talk]])</small> 04:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC) |
You may wish to comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Olaf_Stephanos here] as I have filed an arbitration enforcement case against [[User:Olaf Stephanos]]. As a relatively uninvolved outside editor I feel that your opinions will be valuable. [[User:Colipon|Colipon]]+<small>([[User talk:Colipon|Talk]])</small> 04:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Arbitration Enforcement Amendment == |
|||
Hello, I leave this message to inform you that I am seeking amendment and an ArbCom review of the sanction imposed by administrator [[User:Shell Kinney]]. <font color="green">'''✔</font> [[User:Olaf Stephanos|Olaf Stephanos]]''' <font color="darksalmon" size="+1">[[User_talk:Olaf Stephanos|✍]]</font> 18:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 18:11, 10 August 2009
- NOTE: This page is unfortunately frequently protected because of vandalism. If for whatever reason you are an IP editor or newcomer who finds that he cannot edit this page because of such protection, please feel free to make any reasonable comments at User talk:John Carter/IP. Thank you, and my apologies for the inconvenience.
| This is John Carter's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 2011 |
 | Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. |
Have you taken a look at Portal:Scientology/Wikimedia?
The logo's for each image are extremely expanded. I saw that you were the first one to edit it; but it's been messed up since that time. I think you should take a look at it. Lighthead þ 0:21, March 25 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm not even part of that project but I was just browsing... Lighthead þ 0:32, March 25 2008 (UTC)
Time Times (2008-04)
|
Time Times |
|
| Issue Two • April 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. | ||
thank spam
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky |
Time Times (2008-05)
|
|
Time Times |
|
| Issue Three • May 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. | ||
WP:X Elections
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Time Times (2008-06)
|
|
Time Times |
|
| Issue four • June 2008 • About the Newsletter Written by FrankP and Template Designed by Diligent Terrier | ||
|
News
| ||
| Archives • Newsroom | ||
| If you no longer wish to longer receive this newsletter, please add your name here. Newsletter delivered by {{{Delivered by}}}. | ||
Article about Khomeini
This article has been written by an agent of mullahs! There is not even one sentence on mass execution of political prisoners by Khomeini! There is nothing on violation of women's rights e.g. compulsory hijab. Female judges were forced to give up their jobs such as Shirin Ebadi...in islamic court, mullahs consider 2 women equal to one man! women can't even have an operation without the permission of their father/husband!
mullah even banned western music!
mullahs hang homosexuals & stone those who commit adultery!
those who convert from islam to any other religion will be executed!
Khomeini was behind the Cinema Rex fire, which led to the death (burning alive!) of approx. 500 people! most of your references are biased, they are taken from the islamic regime's sources e.g. poetry!! Khomeini couldn't even speak properly, let alone writing a poem!
I rename this article and I will add references. I have some questionst about it: 1. does references on Serbian language are good as references on English. I ask it because there is much more literature on Serbian church on Serbian than on any other language. 2. how many references are best for lists (one reference for every line or something different)?
AfD nomination of Garrison Courtney
Garrison Courtney, an article that you contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. The nominator does not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garrison Courtney. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns.
Comment on WikiProject organization
Rather than post on the WikiProject I thought I would bring my comment directly to you. I have found that the better functioning projects have strong editors/administrators who actively work at organizing and maintaining the project. Military is a great example to use because they have coordinators assigned not just to the Project, but to each of its Task Forces/Work Groups. I think you may find yourself frustrated trying to set up a similar structure in the Christianity project with so many different opinions and personalities. I wish you all the best because it is long over due; I just hope you don't get frustrated in the effort. -- Absolon S. Kent (chat), 20:20, Thursday, May 16, 2024 (UTC)
lowercase people
Alright, I wont mess with it anymore. I just got a little upset that people categorized lowercase people as a "Christian" organization, which it primarily isn't.
Editing Barnstar
|
100,000 Edits | |
| I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________ |
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states
Mentioned you at this ANI thread I opened on myself. Feel free to stay out of it, if you want to, but wanted you to know I had brought up your name. Hiberniantears (talk)
Can you adopt me ?
Hi, I'm a new user, looking for some guidance under an experienced hand. Can you adopt me ? Rkr1991 (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
. Sorry, but since I didn't get a reply, I got adopted by Dylon620. My apologies. Rkr1991 (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
POV image?
Hey John, is this image ok, or is it presenting a POV interpretation of events depicted/prophesied in the Bible? The image in question is File:Apocalypse1.gif. What do you think? Should I take the question the Christianity project or the Bible project? LadyofShalott 04:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thoughts at WT:X. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 22:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Formatting for autonumbering
I just saw your question in the edit summary here after fixing the numbering for my comment. Some of the indents above your reply were formatted as ::::: instead of #:::::, so the autonumberer started a new list. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Shamelessly seeking input at Advisory Council RFC
I've made a proposal on the talk page of the Advisory Council RFC in hopes of finding a constructive way forward. I'm shamelessly asking for input on it from you and others who have taken part in the discussion. Please see this section and contribute as you see fit. Thanks, alanyst /talk/ 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Christian Conventions
Noted that there are still plenty of SPS references in this article. The statements have a ring of truth to them but are always turned in a way to make the group look bad. For example, workers burn letters and such because they don't have room in their luggage, this is termed ominously "destruction of records", as if the group is not in compliance with some kind of statute. Article is full of this kind of thing. I really don't think much of wiki enforcement. A decision was made about SPS sources, and they are still there. That wouldn't matter in and of itself, except that the article has strong POV against the group. I see some of my suggestion for the first paragraph were taken, but I don't need nonemoman smearing me and also having to fight every line in the article out with the one author and his OR. My feeling is that wiki is now POV against religious groups, pro- secular after Scientology debacle, but that is just a feeling. I would STRONGLY suggest pulling ALL the SPS stuff but I know it won't be done. I suspect writer is either Daniel or Fortt since we do not know who he is. We do know he writes about this group, nothing else, and has done tons of his own research using primary sources. Why? RSuser (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Investigation Started
Hi! This is just to notify you that I have begun investigating 129.2.175.70. If you're interested, you may review the progress here. Thanks. Netalarm 12:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
advisory panel
I think you would be an excellent member, and if your name had been included I would feel a whole lot better about it. Did you send and email to ArbCom, as potential invitees are supposed to do? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
All prior attempts at creating similar groups in the past have been proposed in the past
"All prior attempts at creating similar groups in the past have been proposed in the past" is definitely true, but apparently meaningless. What did you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- [mv from my talk - WMC] I meant "rejected", not proposed. I've made the change to the statement to reflect that. Thanks for catching it. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Aha. Now I understand William M. Connolley (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Engineer, DOD
Many Civil Servants and Contractors are in IRAQ and Afganistan and do get killed, captured/tortured, or injured. We all watch the four contractors being drug thru the streets and hung from the bridge in IRAQ. At least the Military gets combat training and have guns. The Civil Servants get hazard pay but no special medical benefits or what not to cover the dangerous duty. Furthermore, they have to pay taxes on their pay while overseas. 72.75.76.187 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
ANI
Hello, John Carter. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Refusal to engage arguments regarding the failure of some editors to engage arguments. The discussion is about the topic Martin Luther King. Thank you. --Årvasbåo (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Re: Ready for delivery
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-- Tinu Cherian - 04:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Success!
Just thought I should notify you. I've received a response from the University of Maryland, agreeing to investigate and take action against the offending vandal. I'm now closing the case, and we can probably expect a decrease or end to this vandal's activities. Thanks for reporting the vandal! Concluding report may be found here Netalarm 15:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Introductions
Hi John, touched bases with ScienceApologist about prospective mentorship. He'd like to talk to you, so I suggested starting a dialog here. I'll be around if either of you need me. :) Durova278 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi John, what are you proposing vis-a-vis this mentorship? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - July 2009
| The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
John Carter (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Weird thing
Hey John, been a long time. Anyway, there's this user called User:Kashmeri, who is using Aghajani Kashmeri as his userpage and Talk:Aghajani Kashmeri as his talk page via redirects. I know it's a he because on the article he uses a lot of first person, and says he is the son of the article's subject (within the article). Is he allowed to do this? I should know all this by now, yes, I've been here 5 months. But I don't. Sorry if I'm bothering you, I know you're pretty busy. Sorry. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 21:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Removing references to username
Hi John: Special:Contributions/209.162.236.195 who apparently may also be Special:Contributions/RSuser and Special:Contributions/67.43.136.72 has been XXXXX'ing out a username in many places, including discussions. It's my understanding that the old username XXXXX is 209.162.236.19's actual name. If s/he has been the object of cyber-stalking, etc., or fears that might happen, God bless him/her and I hope all goes well. That user name, however has done 625+ edits, and has a real history that wants to be available and maintained, that this XXXXXing hides or makes obscure.
The affected user page has been deleted, but the user contributions remain and offer potential help and insight to other editors.
Do you have any admin tools that would allow to RENAME the XXXXX'd out username, and update talk-page references to that name? The rename could be to something innocuous == "FormerEditor" or something...
For example, I'm thinking it might be possible to change my username 'nemonoman' to 'DoctorNasty', and see that change propogated through all the places I'd signed my handle with --~~~~
Have you ever heard of something like this being done with a userpage? It was done with Taj Mahal: We removed some diacritcal mark from over the "a" in Taj so that seaching for Taj Mahal landed on the article instead of a redirect. Somehow all the page links using the diacritical also got changed, I would assume with some sort of admin tool. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I have no wish to change my old name on edit history, only in those 5 or 6 comments like the one above that deliberately linked my old name and new name together. Obviously that is an inadvertent outing as the old name was my surname. Anyway, nothing so drastic as cyber-stalking, I just don't want my now adult kids or anyone else who shares my surname to be mistakenly assumed to be that lunatic on wikipedia. :) Everyone with that surname, in the world, is a relative, however distant, of mine. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dear 209.etc: I am not assuming any untoward intent on your part here -- I accept your privacy concern at face value, and I am trying to accommodate you by using "XXXXX" myself as we discuss. But the many contributions that were made using the XXXXX username are not now readily accessible by an editor late to the game, and an awareness of XXXXX's history on the CC article was very useful to me, so I assume it would be as well to any newly arrived editor. So finding a way to maintain access to the contribution history XXXXX made is a reasonable goal IMO, if we can find a way to accomodate your privacy concerns\. I assume you don't mind if an Admin has away to alias the XXXXX username and preserve easy access to the contribution history? I'm not doing this to make trouble for you, I'm just asking if the technical functionality exists. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- WP:CHU is probably the best way to go, although that action has to be performed by bureaucrats, not just mere admins. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Dear 209.etc: I am not assuming any untoward intent on your part here -- I accept your privacy concern at face value, and I am trying to accommodate you by using "XXXXX" myself as we discuss. But the many contributions that were made using the XXXXX username are not now readily accessible by an editor late to the game, and an awareness of XXXXX's history on the CC article was very useful to me, so I assume it would be as well to any newly arrived editor. So finding a way to maintain access to the contribution history XXXXX made is a reasonable goal IMO, if we can find a way to accomodate your privacy concerns\. I assume you don't mind if an Admin has away to alias the XXXXX username and preserve easy access to the contribution history? I'm not doing this to make trouble for you, I'm just asking if the technical functionality exists. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since the affected user is watching this page, I'll ask here for his/her opinion on how to proceed. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- As indicated I'm not concerned about the history that exists under my old name. The problem comes in when you and Astynax use references of the form "Old Name/ New Name", linking my old and new names in dialogue, instead of just calling me by my new name. That's why I've had to drop RSUser, because linking the two names defeats the purpose of my getting the new user name in the first place. (Never mind that I'd rather be anon anyway right now). Sorry, if I'm repeating myself but we don't have to change any of the history if you just drop the combined references. Just pretend the "old name" is a different person not related to me. If someone wants to CHU my old name, I'm okay with that but it's not strictly speaking necessary. 67.43.136.72 (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since the affected user is watching this page, I'll ask here for his/her opinion on how to proceed. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Holy Cow!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| For an astonishing amount of library work to provide better sources for Christian Conventions -- so much extra effor it makes me tired just to think about it! Nemonoman (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC) |
After several years of being in wikipedia, rated with a class star and supported by the wikiproject, without any reason, the article of Rodolfo Valentin has been nominated for deletion. Can you please help to "keep" it?. thank youNicole reutman (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Comments
"But there is, so far as I can tell, no good reason for comments such as the above." Not clear whether you are referring to my comments or Nonemoman's in this sentence. Could you clarify? Thanks. Section link if needed is - Talk:Christian_Conventions#.22known_non-reliable.2C_SPS_sources.22 209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
RSN on CC article
Am I allowed to state a POV on the RS/N regarding CC sources? Not clear on this. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- No one is ever barred from commenting anywhere, provided their comments are appropriate and they haven't been made subject of disciplinary measures. Having said that, it wouldn't help much if the comments were very long. A simple indication of what sources are questioned and a short summary of why they are questioned would probably be acceptable, but any statement of excess length is more likely than not to effectively detract from the conversation. John Carter (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- I made my comments and hope they're beneficial. Please have a look and let me know if anything jumps out at you.209.162.236.195 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
John Carter, I am concerned that the RSN request will become bogged down in too much detail. Any ideas? Could you step in and provide some focus. Thanks. 209.162.236.195 (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Stone-Campbell
Per your comment Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 14#Category:Universities and colleges by affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement, do you think it would be prudent to move Restoration Movement to Stone-Campbell Movement over the redirect? It would seem like a good idea to me, if your opinion was accurate. Hope you're doing well, and thanks for the input over at Talk:Southern Nazarene University#Crimson sources and research last month. I'm sorry if I neglected to thank you previously! --King of the Arverni (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Charles G. Koch
Thanks for weighing in. If you peruse Bonewah's talk page, you will note regular accusations of opinion oriented editing. My sense is Bonewah doesn't like character assassination but such is difficult when the subject has no character. Quoting Palast is quoting one of the more reliable sources available but there is also reference to the story when it was carried by CBS News which I included. Bonewah specifically doesn't like the word "giggle", s/he said so. S/he also thinks Truthout is a "fringe" news outlet. Certainly it doesn't have the charm of Fox News but, not influenced by corporate interests, it is one of the few major news outlets we have left. I have asked Greg Palast to provide me with an ironclad reference to the "giggle" comment. I also asked him for permission to use the quote. Whether he will answer or not, I do not know. I believe that this information is important as a more complete portrait of a person who has put his name on a number of things with some pocket change and, as someone said on the talk page "How can we talk this way about a great American businessman." Sigh. Having money still means morally correct to a large number of Americans. As I pile proof on this, Bonewah will come up with even further out comments, I believe. I understand that you are very busy and have much on your plate but, even so, I ask you to actually investigate what Bonewah's objections really are and the comments s/he has received from others with the same complaint that I have. Thank you. I have included my Koch material below.
For profit activities
For a balanced view of Mr. Koch, Truthout's Greg Palast reports that, "In the 1980s, Charles Koch was found to have pilfered about $3 worth of crude from Stanlee Ann Mattingly's oil tank in Oklahoma. Here's the weird part. Koch was (and remains) the 14th richest man on the planet, worth about $14 billion. Stanlee Ann was a dirt-poor Osage Indian.
Stanlee Ann wasn't Koch's only victim. According to secret tape recordings of a former top executive of his company, Koch Industries, the billionaire demanded that oil tanker drivers secretly siphon a few bucks worth of oil from every tank attached to a stripper well on the Osage Reservation where Koch had a contract to retrieve crude.
Koch, according to the tape, would "giggle" with joy over the records of the theft. Koch's own younger brother Bill ratted him out, complaining that, in effect, brothers Charles and David cheated him out of his fair share of the looting, which totaled over three-quarters of a billion dollars from the native lands.
The FBI filmed the siphoning with hidden cameras, but criminal charges were quashed after quiet objections from Republican senators."
Read an interview with William Koch, Charles' brother, on CBS News detailing the above and mentioning that, in the subsequent investigation, 20 of Koch's "gaugers" testified under oath that stealing was company policy directly from the top [1]. This last is separate from William's testimony.
- [1]: William Koch appears on CBS News
- Truthout: Truthout discusses American values or lack of morality vis-à-vis native peoples, historically consistent American history.Stormport (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Athanasius - moved from IP page
Dear John Carter,
I am "MacforJesus", whom you challenged to supply proof of Saint Athanasius' innocence of the murder of Arian Bishop George of Alexandria.
I have prepared a short desertation, this being only an outline.
When someone seeks a job today they seek testimonials / references.
I refer to the testimonial given by Julian the Emporor that succeded his father Constance, November 361. He reverted to paganism and was an adversary of Saint Athanasius.
He sent a message to the Bishop to expel him from Alexandria and gave the reasons, simply that he did not permit him to return to his see.
At this occasion he had the opportunity to give more reasons but did'nt. If he had given the reason of murder or complicity in murder it would have been far more damaging for the church would not continue to accept Saint Athanasius.
My study of heremenutics assures me of the credability of this.
In fact Julian refers to Saint Athanasius' qualities of personality and courage even in a derisory way.
The full outline of these details and references I can supply.
Athanasius continued to be accepted as a leader of one of the five centers of Christendom and visited Antioch, and the petrarch there to consolidate the Nicean Creed. A thing he could not do if there was the slightest hint of complicity in murder. He would be shunned by all.
MacOfJesus (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- All of the above you say is interesting but it without references to support those statements it would be a violation of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or WP:POV to allow the content of the article to be effected by such conclusions. I specifically asked for reliable sources, as per WP:RS, to support the contention, and I still request such material, as that is the only material which can be used to effect the content of an article. John Carter (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
No, this is just the outline of my response. The full account including references will come later. Why I sent this outline is that if you don't accept my understanding of Julian's words, there would be no point in continuing.
MacOfJesus (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- In all honesty, unfortunately, if it is just 'your interpretation of Julian's words", emphasis on your, there probably isn't going to much point in going on, because if you are trying to make a statement based on your own interpretation of statements in reliable sources, rather than tusing explicit words of RS's themselves which make the same point, then you would be basing the argument not on what the sources say, but your own interpretation of sources, which would violate one or more of the policies linked to above. I myself am going to try, emphasis on try, to find Rowan Williams' book on Arianism and Arius, which I think is a source of some of the material you are contesting. Unfortunately, I have no doubt that book is considered an RS, so its statements will probably qualify for inclusion. But what we need here is clear statements from the sources themselves, not our own interpretation of those statements, because we can't use anything we ourselves generate anywhere here. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I would just quote the banishment order of Julian after 22 Feb 362, after George the Arian Bishop was killed, this should stand for itself. The very absence of an accusiation, here, should be enough. My interpitation of it can be left out! The interpitation can be left in the outline which I'v sent to you.
MacOfJesus (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- No unfortunately it almost certainly isn't enough. What you are trying to do is draw a conclusion based on evidence, and have content changed to reflect that conclusion. The absence of an accusation in a given document does not mean that such an accusation could not have been made. There are any number of reasons why anyone might opt not to include information, and it would be a very clear violation of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR to say that the absence of a statement means that such a statement could not be made. If you want to say that it is impossible that Athanasius did something, it is incumbent on you, by policy, to find a source which explicitly states that. The absence of an accusation in that document is not proof of anything.
- Like I said, the Williams book is considered a reliable source, and is probably the best known work regarding the subject to have come out in recent years. I even heard an hour long interview with him on "Fresh Air" at the reissuing of the book. Like I said, I haven't yet gotten ahold of the book, although I will try tomorrow, but as I remember he made statements in that book to the effect that there were some who believed that Athanasius's conduct was less than it might be. If he does say as much, then that information will have to be included. The only way to refute that would be by additional information cited directly from sources arguing the opposite. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC0
The Order was addressed from Julian to Ecdicius, the Prefect of Egypt, given to Saint Athanasius and his people on 23 Oct 362, by Pythicodorus Trico, permantely commanding the expulsion of the restored primate on the grounds that he was never included in the Imperial Order of Clemency.
When I asked students of this study, they replied: "How are you going to prove that".
I was going to look up the writings of the other Saints who lived on or after Athanasius at their writings for testamonials.
MacOfJesus (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good luck. Verifiable statements of contemporaries or near-contemporaries would be reasonable content to be added, and, if those statements say something to the effect of "he couldn't do such things" that would definitely qualify for inclusion. But we can only repeat what others have explicitly said before, and not try to draw any conclusions they themselves did not explicitly draw based on their statements. John Carter (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Saint Gregory of Nazianzen 330-390, said in Or. 21: "When I praise Athanasius, virtue itself is my theme: for I name every vertue as often as I mention him who was possessed of all vertues. He was the true pillar of the church. His life and conduct were the rule of bishops, and his doctrine the rule of the orthodox faith."
Full references and sources can be supplied! Saint Gregory of Nazianzen & Saint Athanasius are doctors of the Church, so am confident in "prooving" my hand.
I cannot find anything better than this, at least at the moment!
MacOfJesus (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, but do note that general statements about how a given subject is "x" don't necessarily suffice to indicate that same person didn't do "y". I wasn't able to find the Williams book yesterday, so can't go into detail regarding it yet. I hope you realize I'm not disagreeing with you, simply trying to do what policy requires of us all. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for coming back to me. I'v discovered a testimonial that might be what we are looking for. Mother F. A. Forbes, a student of this study says, that Jovian, the Emperor that succeded Julian wrote Athanasius a letter: "Jovian - to Athanasius, the faithful servent of God, it ran. "As we are full of admiration for the holiness of your life and your life and your zeal in the service of Christ our Saviour, we take you from this day forth under our royal protection. We are aware of the courage which makes you count as nothing the heaviest labours, the greatest dangers, the sufferings of persecution and the fear of death. You have faught faithfully for the Truth and edified the whole Christian world, which looks to you as a model of every vertue. It is therefore our desire that you should return to your See and teach the doctrine of salvation. Come back to your people, feed the flock of Christ and pray for our person, for it is through your prayers that we hope for the blessing of God". Another letter followed inviting him to visit Antioch. The Arians were there asking for a new bishop at Alexandria. "We are Alexandrians and we desire a Bishop". "I have ordered Athanasius to return to his See". "We have proofs against him". "He was banished by Constantine.." I have heard a very different story..." His teaching is well enough, but his heart is full of malice." "He calls us heretics!" "That is his duty and the duty of all those who guard the flock of Christ".
I'v yet to trace the sources. I'll look up the life of Jovian.
MacOfJesus (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Useful information again. Unfortunately, at the time, it wasn't unheard of for even extremely pious people to order the killing or torture of adversaries, and nothing you've shown to date definitively addresses that particular point. I think the Williams book does to some degree. I hope so anyway. Unfortunately, as of today, only a copy three or four editions ago is available. I am going to check tomorrow what if anything I can find in that book, because I personally at least hope the content hasn't changed that much. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. It is very hard to prove a negative. If I were to say that the present Pope could never have being complicity in murder, I may be asked why I were to say that. If this accusation was not there in the years after Athanasius, how can we prove one way or the other, Q.E.D. proof? I'm still looking.
MacOfJesus (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're right. It is very hard to prove a negative, particularly if WP:RS's make a significant statement of how it might be possible. The possible strength of the apparent accusation is one factor to consider. If, for instance, Williams says something like "The Arians accused Athanasius of torture, and these accusations were largely dismissed by everyone else," then we can say something to that effect without any WP:SYNTH problems. If he doesn't, all that can be done is to add the "accusations" and "responses" in accord with WP:UNDUE. Our primary here isn't to present any opinion of any subject, but rather to as accurately as possible reflect what the existing material regarding the subject says. Most of the major church fathers didn't get involved in controversies of this type, and so they didn't face these sorts of accusations. Even fewer had adversaries whose material has survived to any degree, and so taking into account those lost "accusations" isn't something we have to do, although Mary Magdalene is one case in point where we do have to. I wish it weren't the case, but them's the rules. I can also check on the response/reviews of the book. If they discount the accusations such that they qualify as WP:FRINGE, then they can be placed in an article on the book proper. But that will require a review of the responses to the book, and that might be rather more complicated. John Carter (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I do ask you, to look again at the declaration of Saint Gregory Nazianzen; Athanasius being a man of all vertue, surely that includes inclination to murder, anger, plotting, etc. The seven deadly sins or the capital sins shows that these inclinations are the opposite to vertue and are excluded in all vertue. It was said after his death. It surely will stand up to any scrutiny. I doubt that you will get anything better than that. I do know what you mean be some proposing to be vertous and not, i.e. the life of Saint John of The Cross, who was imprisoned by another order of religious! Also, in the account of Jovian, the Ariens had the chance to outline their objection to Athanasius and to the Emperor, too, and all they could say was that Athanasius said that they were heretics. This was said when they were challenged to place their objection, directly to the Emperor Jovian (who had been an officer in the Roman Army, renound for their fairness and leadership of men).
I am very impressed by Mother F. A. Forbes account and, too, The Butler lives of The Saints. The strict "historical" accounts seem to have a lot of lacunae!
A clinical, non-biased entry can be made on the two suggestions above, after further research.
MacOfJesus (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
On second thought surely in the case of Saint Gregory's testamonial x does exclude y. (Seven Deadly Sins), going back to Pope Saint Gregory the Great. In all honesty, vertue and all vertue does exclude the directive to murder or the inclination to murder. Piety, or piousness are not opposits to sin, in this case. In the case of Henry II of England, anger came before his words, one of the deadly sins. (He did repent of it, however, and publically). In the case of Jovian situation I think there is good case to make to stand independantly and is a worthy item for Saint Athanasius' page, one way or the other.
MacOfJesus (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I see the end result as placing a factual statement with reference without infrence on the site. I have placed such an entry into the Saint Dismas site under "Theological Significance". I am not unfamiliar with historical discourse. I am also familiar with spirituality and the soul's struggle for holiness. Thank you for taking my little efforts seriously.
MacOfJesus (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
May I have concensus to place the Saint Gregory testamonial in the main site as it is given above without infrence, and where on the site would it be most appropriate?
MacOfJesus (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear John Carter, I hope to have in my possession the books: Rowan Arius Williams, Heresy and Tradition '87, Dartm., L. & Todd, and Duane Arnold, The Episcopal career of Athanasius of Alexandria 1991, sometime shortly.
MacOfJesus (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear John Carter,
I'v received the message you left me, and responded there, OK? Thanks.
MacOfJesus (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Dear John Carter,
I'v left further research and thoughts on that same page, OK? Thanks.
MacOfJesus (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Might interest you. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Your ANI post
Hi John, although I'm pretty sure the IP and The Twelfth Doctor are the same, I have to note that those edits are a content dispute in which you are, I think, correct, but not vandalism, and 3RR is supposed to be a 'bright line' with only reverting clear vandalism or BLP violations given an exemption. Note I've left one article unprotected as there wasn't enough action there to warrant protection. If it boils up, let me know, but watch your edits. I can't really warn one side of a dispute and not another, I'm afraid. Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're right there. Sorry about that, and thanks. I wasn't sure about the last revert myself, but looked at the policy page in advance and may have misread what I saw to my own advantage. I'm afraid that sort of mistake is one I do make once in a while. John Carter (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I try hard to stop at 2. It's not worth getting warned about, let alone blocked. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Reliable sources
I put forward the point a long time ago (it's in the RS talk archives somewhere) that "reliable" sources is a misnomer, misleading and confusing, as no source is infallible. I suggested "acceptable" sources (for wikipedia purposes) would be a more helpful concept. Some sources may be reliable, but actually not acceptable, and vice versa. Sources may be acceptable for one thing, but not another. Some mainstream sources would be acceptable for all content, as wikipedia is essentially a digest of established thought (even if that is erroneous at times: if it's mainstream, it holds sway). Some sources would be acceptable in a much more limited way, i.e. to demonstrate an extreme, minority (but not "tiny" minority) viewpoint. Ty 01:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar
For helping me whenever I ask, even though you are busy and I am annoying, I present you with this:-
|
The "Helping Random Idiots Who Can't Use Wikipedia" Barnstar | |
| For helping me and stuff. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 14:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC) |
Thanks. Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 14:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome [level 3 sarcasm] :) Spongefrog, (talk to me, or else) 20:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
WikiVanuatu
Thanks for doing great work relating Vanutu wiki project. As I am starter in Wiki , i feel I have difficulty in templates. Kindly do some work to improve the Wiki Vanuatu project. Thank you friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueLankan (talk • contribs) 18:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
WikiVanuatu
Thank you friend —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueLankan (talk • contribs) 18:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
For reading the offer in the spirit it was intended. Let's hope that a year from now things are on a much better footing all around. Best wishes, Durova288 22:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Request for assistance
I am currently trying to help the editors in the Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) topic area move away from POV pushing and personal commentary. (Please note: Talk:Falun Gong#Topic area review.) You are an editor that I believe can help facilitate this change. I am looking for some uninvolved people with experience and savvy to become involved in the editorial process. A review of the article and associated discussion, in a style similar to a good article review or broad RfC response, would be a good first step and very helpful. However, some leadership in discussion and editing as a whole would be invaluable and sincerely appreciated. This can cover a very broad range including (but not limited to) identifying article flaws, keeping conversation focused on content, reporting disruptive editors, making proposed compromises, boldly correcting errors, and so forth. If you are willing to help out, please look things over and provide your feedback on the Falun Gong talk page. Essentially, we need some experienced editors to put things on track. Any assistance in this regard is gratefully welcomed. Thanks! --Vassyana (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for chiming in at Talk:Falun Gong and especially for your kind offer to assist with sourcing. I sincererly appreciate it. --Vassyana (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Your assistance would be much appreciated in helping set up this wikiproject since you have so much experience in this field. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Please advise on recent edit on Falun Gong page
Please see: this diff and talk Talk:Falun_Gong#User:PCPP_edit_warring. Normally I would revert this in a flash because it's blanking of sourced material, but since now you are here with your experience, I would like your advice. More info on this edit: Using Margaret Singer as a source is shaky and controversial, because of her background. So as a compromise Olaf added WP:RS on her background so the reader will not confuse her with other well established scholars. But that seems like it's not good enough and somehow PCPP thinks that "These material is irrelevant. This is about criticism of FLG, not criticism of Margaret Singer." Which is partially true, the section is not about criticism of Margaret Singer, but I think it should establish who Margaret Singer is and how scholarly her judgment is. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
"Hello... my old friend"
Hi! Could Moonraker022, Smjwalsh, and I have some of your sage advice over at Talk:Church of the Nazarene#Not the place for extended paragraphs on each issue? This is the most recent edit with regards to the info. --inquietudeofcharacter (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
An attempt to rewrite the FLG articles
Do you think it's a good ideal to get the pro and anti FLG editors to rewrite the current FLG articles in a sandbox, and build the final article from the two versions? I previously voiced my concerns on the article, Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China, and worked up a (what I feel is) more neutral version version here.--PCPP (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Category trees
I noticed that you are making a lot of edits to pages like User:John Carter/Christianity category tree/7 to build category trees. Perhaps you already know about this and have a specific reason not to be using it, but in case you don't know I figured I'd point out that you can do all of this automatically using the categorytree syntax. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
For example,
<categorytree>Christianity by location</categorytree>
<categorytree depth=3>Christianity by location</categorytree>
etc. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do know about those. What I am at this point basically trying to do is put together a list of all the relevant subcategories of Category:Christianity, so that we can ensure that the categories are all placed in the appropriate "parent" catgories and all the required subcats also exist. Unfortunately, that involves rather a long list, so I'm also trying to add "see (x)" links to replace the lower order appearances of categories to hopefully reduce space. Upon completion of the whole thing, I think I'll have a better idea which categories aren't yet appropriately categorized and which required categories haven't been made yet. John Carter (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you delete this? I made a mistake for nominating that for deletion. I have changed the article to redirect. Hagadol (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Out of my league, I'm afraid. I don't deal with AfDs often enough to know the procedures there. My guess is that it won't be deleted, because there will be some memory somewhere about it, so that the page recording the withdrawl of the request might be useful. Maybe. If I were you, I'd post a message on the general AfD talk page about it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. They'd probably know the procedures better than I would. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
User box
Hello John, do you know if there is an user-box saying "Don't read what I wrote, read what I meant to wrote"? I think that would be a great addition to my (and perhaps any) user page, because (and now I'm getting serious, (well that is my flaw)) even if it's unrealistically demanding it does uphold WP:AGF. PS: I'm not that experienced with user boxes (as it might be 'seriously' obvious on my user page). --HappyInGeneral (talk) 06:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
More on intertranswiki
John. Could you edit Template:Expand language so whatever language template is applied e.g {Expand Russian} there is a sentence within the templates which reads e.g Please see Intertranswiki Russian for details. Preferably after it says Please expand this article. It is important that this is connected and coordinated with the new project. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
John, the templates were created by Calliopejen and I. There is no need for approval. She created the Expand language template herself after seeing my templates. She would have done it hherself but she has just gone on holiday. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Re:Newsletter delivery
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-- Tinu Cherian - 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
RS/N thread
Please have a look whether this summary is okay. Thanks. --JN466 19:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - August 2009
| The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Falun Gong sources
Hi John. I have no access to JSTOR so would you be able to mega-upload those pdf files of the books, publications, and journals you were talking about on Falun Gong? Colipon+(Talk) 23:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Invitation
|
WikiProject Zoroastrianism
|
- Thank you for the invitation. I left that group earlier because of the presence of one editor, Fullstop, whose conduct is such that I dare say I find almost any contact with him something I would, basically, rather avoid. He was, ultimately, the reason I left that group earlier. However, if for whatever reason you think that any articles would directly benefit from my help and/or such help is not available from competent others elsewhere, I would certainly be willing to do what I can. John Carter (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, that's rather too bad. However, Fullstop is not currently a member of the WikiProject. However, if you still do not plan on returning, I could still your help. Firstly, I was wondering, what was the reason for this edit, as it removed the Category:Zoroastrianism from the template. Secondly, I would really appreciate if you peer review Zoroastrianism. The archive can be found here. Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Question regarding Arbitration and sources.
As you already know, I have began an arbitration case draft at User:Colipon/My_Stuff/Sandbox. I was wondering, because you were the one who first reminded me of the possible Arbitration Enforcement route, would you mind contributing to this case, judging by what you've seen on these pages? I have never done arbitration before and I am unsure how to go about it. Colipon+(Talk) 00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
topic-ban comment Falun Gong
Maybe a topic-ban for those involved wouldn't be such a bad idea. As a disinterested user who was invited to break up this "stalling filibuster," and whose "main field" is Southern Africa, I would eventually support that, even if it "hits me." Now that the article is protected, we have time to discuss, but if this keeps going, somebody needs to intervene, in the interest of wikipedia. Seb az86556 (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Any reason?
Hi, any reason for [2]? DuncanHill (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- OK, thanks! DuncanHill (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Just informing
You may wish to comment here as I have filed an arbitration enforcement case against User:Olaf Stephanos. As a relatively uninvolved outside editor I feel that your opinions will be valuable. Colipon+(Talk) 04:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration Enforcement Amendment
Hello, I leave this message to inform you that I am seeking amendment and an ArbCom review of the sanction imposed by administrator User:Shell Kinney. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)