User talk:Steven J. Anderson/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


A World Without Jews[1]

That's the title of the English language book or booklet containing that Marxist text which Marxists call On the Jewish Question. But as far as I know, that the only title for that text published as a book in English - in 1959: [2]. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On The Jewish QuestionOn the Jewish Question

Check that out! --Ludvikus (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Jewish Question (disambiguation)

Please check the REDIRECT problem in the above. Can you solve it? --Ludvikus (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:On the Jewish Question (disambiguation)

It is still orphaned - so you did not need to apologize to WP editor Mukkadart. I think he (inadvetantly) ophaned this page. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jewish quesion vs. Jewish question

Hi again. Can you (1) fix the Move & (2) checkout the content:

Jewish quesionThe Jewish question

Thanx. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Solved? --Ludvikus (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


I decided to userfy it because it may have been improved at a later date. However, the WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL zombies seem to have prevailed. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Hi Steven J. Anderson. I would like you to weigh in on the discussion topic of "Weasel Words" on the talk page for AIPAC (talk: American Israel Public Affairs Committee). A user keeps inserting the word "controversial" in the opening paragraph, providing no sources that describe AIPAC as "controversial," only fringe sources that criticize AIPAC. I would appreciate your input when you get a chance. Many thanks. Stanley011 (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


It's hard to demonstrate that it meets the "persistent" requirement unless we give them the chance to do it again (depending on the severity of the offense). If you don't give them the chance to do it again, you also don't give them the chance to do the right thing.

Even if they have persisted in the long run by doing the same thing again, it's hard to argue that we're stopping current persistent vandalism when they've only done it once this time. I actually saw someone earlier tonight vandalize after returning from a block but then stop it altogether after a warning. You don't necessarily have to go through level 1, level 2, level 3, and level 4 when it's obvious vandalism, but skipping warnings or jumping straight to level 4 can give the impression that you're trigger-happy and chomping at the bit, looking for a reason to get someone blocked. Doczilla STOMP! 07:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Anderson...

Surprised to see me? - TLB (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Should I be? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I sometimes spontaneously quote The Matrix... :P Cheers, - TLB (Tick Tock) (Contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 02:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Nutcase revisions to talk page?

What gives?
(cur) (last) 09:31, 27 June 2008 Steven J. Anderson (Talk | contribs) (164,796 bytes) (Undid revision 222008360 by Oldspammer (talk) Delete irrational off-topic rant w/ links to nutcase videos on google vids.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 03:08, 27 June 2008 Oldspammer (Talk | contribs) (170,902 bytes) (→Reasons???: Reply added.) (undo)

Please tell me how some of these videos are nutcases? I'm seriously interested in how they are flawed! Maybe I've been seriously mislead?

As for the topic--what does the section heading say? And what was the prior contributer asking about?

Gee, you did not even let the added reply comment sit on the talk page for more than a few hours! Wikipedia is said not to be censored, but you seem to have proven otherwise--especially for just the talk page discussion.

For reference purposes here is the information that you removed:

Are you asleep? Wake up--For your own edification you should do your own in-depth research on this topic. Some say that Jewish Freemasons largely constitute another secret society known as the illuminati. The Bible that was authored by Hebrews / Jews indicates that the Jews are GOD's chosen people, and that one day the Anti-Christ will rule the entire world from Jerusalem (One World Government). That Armageddon is a city / town in Israel / Palestine that it was foretold there would be the second coming of Christ to defeat the Anti-Christ and that a "New Jerusalem" would be created after the holy rapture. Jesus Christ supposedly was a Jew. Zionist Jews and Zionist Christians from ancient times till today supposedly have made efforts to bring these biblical prophecies to fruition. In ancient times 10 of the original 12 tribes of Hebrews / Jews were cast out of Egypt and went on to conquer the land of Canaan. They renamed Canaan to be Israel. Later battles over this territory had the land renamed to Palestine. The 12 tribes of Israel were formed by the descendants of Jacob:

The 12 Sons of Jacob were :
1. Reuben
2. Simeon
3. Levi
4. Judah
5. Issachar
6. Zebulun
7. Dan
8. Naphtali
9. Gad
10. Asher
11. Joseph
12. Benjamin

But the Tribe of Joseph is replaced by the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh and the Tribe of Levi, being guardians and priests, did not receive any territory. Hence the 12 tribes are:
1. Reuben
2. Simeon
3. Judah
4. Issachar
5. Zebulun
6. Dan
7. Naphtali
8. Gad
9. Asher
10. Benjamin
11. Ephraim (son of Joseph)
12. Manasseh (son of Joseph)

Denmark is said to be named from the "mark of Dan." The Vikings are said by some to be descendants of the tribes of Joseph. Similarly with the Macedonians. Many of the royal houses of Europe intermarried with the family descendants of the Hebrew money changers. Many German-sounding names are associated with Jewish families. Queen Elizabeth II is descendant of Scottish, Irish, Viking, German, Hebrew, and Egyptian royalty according to the College of Heralds in London. Claimed in one of the links below is that many of the Jews killed by Hitler in the concentration camps were Eastern European Jews of the so called 13 tribe who came to the religion of Judisim by conversion when their land was conquered by a Hebrew king long ago. Alois Schicklgruber changed his name to Alois Hitler. His mother was Maria Anna Schicklgruber. An Austrian investigation into ancestry found that at that time she became illegitimately pregnant with Alois, she was employed as a servant in the home of Baron Salomon Mayer von Rothschild. Adolf Hitler was therefore a descendant of Jewish ancestry. Some historians believe that the Rothschild-illuminati groomed Adolf Hitler to take power in Germany, and then attempt a world takeover in WW2. Adolf Hitler's body was burned beyond recognition--so it is possible that he escaped to safety at the end of the war (Ratlines_(history) where the Vatican, and others spirited away Nazis after WW2). The actions of certain individuals of Jewish ancestry has brought about the downfall of many innocent people, started many wars, and brought huge wealth and power to those individuals. Much of this has to do with the sciences of investment banking, brokering wars, secret agent / spying intelligence gathering networks, insider trading, drug addiction, the drug trade, controlling interests in corporations, equities, energy supplies, cartels, bribery & government corruption, and so on. Google search of usery hebrew OR jewish money-changers fiat.
The following set of links can be used to start your searches off. I do not endorse them all as factual. Some historical writings are debatable, so the basis of some of these requires a grain of salt or a number of leaps of faith that you may or may not want to do.
Texe Marrs Bronfman Rothschild, Understanding anti-Semitism, AmenStop, Zionism, Israel Rothschild, Jewish Freemasons, Alex Jones illuminati, AP Reuters Rothschild, Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 that eventually lead to the British giving the Rothschild-Illuminati and the Jewish people a large chunk of Palestine after WW2 to create the state of Israel about 1948. AP and Reuters are Wikipedia reliable sources and are Rothschild sphere-of-influence-controlled media outlets. History of the Federal Reserve Money Masters, Fiat Empire, Stanley Monteith, G. Edward Griffin, "David Icke Freedom or Fascism" Oldspammer (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oldspammer (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on 04:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

hi Steven, thanks for the editings you have made to Backgammon page, I do agree that first paragraph might be unnecessary, but the text was more older than Shahnameh. Thanks for you carefull editing of the text but when editing you should just edit and you should not make a text of yourself which relatively differs from Original pahlavi text. Thank you for what you have done and I hope you could help me more checking my pages. FarzadFederico (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Thank you Steven. I really appreciate it. I also appreciate your helping out. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help with Shituf

I am writing this to you because you have edited articles on Jewish subjects in the past. There is currently an RfC on the talk page of this article [3].

You can view the difference between the contending versions of the article here: [4].

The page is currently protected from editing for 5 days, but the end result of the article depends on what consensus, if any, is reached during those 5 days. Please help with this RfC. -LisaLiel (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OR on Ark of the Covenant

I was about to revert it but you beat me to it. I've given him a warning about OR (template warning using Twinkle). If he ignores that and does it again today I'm around. Doug Weller (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, he's persistent, I've requested semi-protection.
I've looked at the image, and frankly I have a hard time with the image, especially as it is the only one on the page. One of the sources provided even says Judaism without embellishments was more anti-religious than anti-Semitic. The image makes it look as though atheism is the problem or main source of anti-Semitism, which just isn't the case. I don't think it should be there, it isn't at all representative. Sorry to have to say that. I'm surprised that images from various time periods aren't used. Doug Weller (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It's now semi-protected. Cheeky I guess since I couldn't help you on the other article, but I'd like your thoughts on this one on the chronology of the Bible [5]. Two things -- of course the Seder Olam Rabbah should be there. But the dates in the text (which weren't sourced until I found sources) conflict with the table, which isn't sourced. Plus, there are other chronologies which used to be in the article before the tables but have been eliminated. I've tried several times to raise the issue on the talk page but get ignored. I'm really just asking for your thoughts, not action. Doug Weller (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd missed the inconsistencies. Yes, the Seder Olam Rabbah is sourced -- I sourced it myself because no one else had -- but the sources give a very different Creation date than the date in the tables, and thus for all the other dates. It looks stupid to have such an inconsistency, but I keep mentioning it and the main editors just ignore me. Doug Weller (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue

Wikipedia is so concerned with removing people deemed "not notable." I did not write about myself, some thing somewhere, or some random thing that happened yesterday; I wrote about an author that is releasing a book in December and is at the very least "notable." If people do not want to look at the pages of non-notable people, I'm not forcing them to go to this page, but people who seek information on Michael Richtner should be able to find it on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not exactly an encyclopedia, most encyclopedia's are accurate. (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


I've looked into the history of the person behind the "Orthodox Jewish" messianic bible. Although the book seems to fit into the microcosm represented in the article, the editor is putting a lot of links into different pages, apparently advertising his work.

Not sure the correct course of action here, but that website he keeps linking is problematic. I don't see any neutral scholarly material or presentation anywhere.Tim (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Although I think the book itself qualifies, I don't think the site does. I would support a process to engage Fredeee and, if necessary, to have the site blacklisted. It adds no value to Wikipedia.Tim (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Indiana

I'm very pleased you've stepped in. Ironically, I am just off to Indiana tonight via North Carolina and won't have access to Wikipedia for over a week, so I hope you can stave off this attempt which could be used as a precedent. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


I don't much care which way it reads - I think BC/AD would make more sense, but it's not that important to me. But if you're looking for FA status, you certainly want consistency of usage, which would include either BC/AD or BCE/CE in the article, but not both. I see you fixed that. However, some of the years are linked and some are not. What's up with that? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It was you that said "The article was encyclopedic, scholarly and apppropriate the way it was." Tell me what the point is, in restoring links to round-number years? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Except that they weren't all the same, because you missed the 8000 BC. However, you fixed that later. It also contained the same grammar mistake, missing the "as" in front of it, as the main Indiana article, which I had also missed, and fixed today. So, should we de-link the round number years, then? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not absolutely sure what the policies and guidelines are meant to encourage on linking years, so I don't mess with them. If you can figure it out, I doubt I'll have any objection to whatever you do. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, if I find out anything, I'll let you know. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.

  • Newsletter delivery by xenobot 03:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


As you venturingly reverted my edits in some of the articles, despite earlier edits were fully correct, this seems to be relatively indecent and contentious. Kindly help me educate, citing reasons for this daring act as none of your current edits seems to be arable and I expect your reply now! --Vikaszt (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Reply

Keeping in view of your derogatory remarks, as observed in my talk page, I concluded that even you do not have fertile imaginations, who indirectly swaggers himself as an erudite of English language; remember, since "Man is a bundle of errors", so "to err is human" ( however for the word "arable", I would have to write "fertile" instead, which I admit) and since no man is perfect in this mortal world, how you can be an exception. This I expressly stress on basis of your silliness committed in the article "Wrong turn", a horror movie, in which you shot off yourself as a wiseacre and wrongly reiterated changes for "The group realize": How can it be "realize", despite knowing that group indicated here, or there in the article, is singular. Verbally known, according to the English Present Indefinite Tense, it must be instead as "The group realizes".

So, in future, I request you not to judge people or things apparently from the upper level, until you discover exactly their apposite form—this I tell you on brotherly basis and I do not have any personal enmity with you. --Vikaszt (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The AfD

isn't necessary. I'll tag it for a speedy delete isntead, ok? Thanks. HG | Talk 20:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In some ways, it might be better for us to just have a cleaner route for people to do their humor. HG | Talk 20:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC) PS The user blanked the article except for the speedy, so it's ok. HG | Talk 20:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

board game, table game, tableTOP game

Small error in cross-matching articles, the correct reference should have been to an article called Tabletop games. Is the correct behaviour to cease contributing unless one can do so without error? Is there a way to ensure that I get notified when my entries are removed or amended ? Help gratefully received (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


QUESTION - Board and Table Game Categories and Cross-references It is not clear from the board game page or any of the other sub-categories that the "top" level is tabletop game. Table game does redirect to tabletop game but the plural table gameS and tabletop gameS do not do so. There is inconsistency in the use of plurals and in the use of noun or verb and variations ie 'ing' and in the use of and / &. ? how does one ensure a viable and acceptable reidrect as well as corrections of this sort.

As an example Snakes and Ladders is in Category:Children's board games; Category:Roll-and-move board games; Race games; but not as a Board game nor as a tabletop game. Is this the standard Wikipedia arrangement ? and I have just been much perplexed by the rules on Capital letters.

Categories There are almost too many views on this topic. Looking at the game websites which is where many will begin to look for information it is evident that there is a 3-ply or 4-ply categorisation. That is to say by number of PLAYERS; broad CATEGORY; and by CHANCE or MECHANICS and especially for war-game by time PERIOD. Is the assessment of identifying by such a multi-variant schema within the ambit of Wikipedia or the Games Editors Group ?

QUESTION How does one arrange such a stub without it being immediately rejected for not meeting existing articles and preferences?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Should these be set up as Stubs?


Board & Table Games - this should be a ?stub making it clear that the Wikipedia arrangement is for Tabletop game from which Board games from which many sub-categories.


Computer games This should be a ?stub making it clear that there are -i- computerised reconstructions of games with the computer as opponent examples - Mah-Jongg, Chess, -ii- computer games ie games which would not exist without the computer examples - Shoot-em-Ups, Pinball, Tetris, Lemmings, Super Mario and others -iii- games where the computer assists by keeping score or acting as dungeon-master examples - Star Wars, Civilization, many wargames. -iv- online games where the computer assists by keeping score and maintaining visuals, characters and scenes. examples Myst and many wargames. -v-


Puzzles are a variety of game primarily for the solo player. There are examples where the puzzler and the puzzlee alternate and some scoring method identifies a winner. The play-action is for a person working on their own.


Recreational mathematics **for which I see there is as yet no article - ooops wrong capitals **is a branch of mathematics which has been massively publicised by Henry Dudeny, Martin Gardner, Sam Loyd and others. A significant number of puzzles have a strong mathematical basis and can be found within the mathematical literature under the Recreational heading. Those puzzles which most strongly have a mathematical basis should be categorised as mathematical puzzles.

I do have a very comprehensive list under several sub-categories of this topic. Salisbury-99 (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


The user is a Holocaust denier. I did the right thing and deleted the post. Please note well, I am one person who can't be bullied--Woogie10w (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Listen here, stop bothering me, you do not give me any orders. The Holocaust discussion page is for improving the page, not discussing Holocast denial. I checked the IP address, it's from the US Army in Iraq.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


You nixed my definition of "rick" citing it wasn't used in any of the articles mentioned. See the description for the second image in the Bourbon whiskey article. I'm going to add back the definition under rick and use just one link this time, as mandated. I'll point to the Bourbon article as a reference. As a favor, instead of nuking a change because you don't like it, perhaps put a mention in my talk or in the discussion for the article so we can hash it out. Thanks. Kaplansa (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


As a participant in the recent discussion at WP:ANI, I thought you should be informed of the new RFC that another user has started regarding FPAS's behavior.

Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The Judaism Newsletter

This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Newsletter delivery by xenobot 21:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

American Dissident Voices

I think American Dissident Voices is a G10 and have tagged it as such. Now the AfD's started we might have to wait though. WikiScrubber (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: I see the previous comment is a judaism newsletter and the article you nominated is about an accused anti-semetic. Please try to remain objective and neutral in your editing and avoid COI (which is not to say you haven't been, just a friendly reminder). WikiScrubber (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Worst person book

Your suggestion is fine by me, Steve. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


Hey Steven, I noticed your post just now at talk. I'm a bit undecided on the protection issue, and I'm wondering if you've considered how even the talk page is nearly unmanageable at the current level of activity. The article will be extraordinarily difficult to police for outright vandalism, let alone POV-pushing. I can see how the protection level runs counter to the philosophy of the wiki, but I'm concerned that in practice the article would end up totally locked after about 2 min. I'm genuinely curious as to your view. Kaisershatner (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already totally locked now, so we'd be no worse off than we are already. Personally, I think a big part of the reason the talk page is so unmanageable is the fact that the article is fully protected. I know that the thread I started would not be there, but for that. As to what would happen if the page were unprotected, no one knows for sure how bad it would get, and the only way to find out is to acquire a little empirical evidence by lowering the protection level to see what happens. Unfortunately, no admin will do that for fear of having his bit threatened and getting wrapped up in a convoluted, byzantine arbcom case that spans many pages. We have other, similar articles like the ones on Obama, McCain and Biden that are doing quite well under semiprotection and arbcom restrictions, which I would fully support at the Palin article. I suspect there are some editors who, although they haven't quite said so, would like to see the page fully protected until after the election, which would clearly be a disaster for Wikipedia, making a sham of the claim that we are "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey Steven, more thoughts later but thanks for your reply. FWIW I read the suggestion to lock until after the election as a sarcastic joke. But your points are well taken in any case. Kaisershatner (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
100% agreement with what you say..Thank you for pointing out the high level of traffic on this page. That is an excellent argument in favor of lowering the protection level as soon as possible and not waiting for the traffic to abate. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be available to edit by anyone. The fact that our most-trafficked article is locked is a mockery of our purpose.Please reference my comment in agreement @ the end of Background on Traffic. I don't doubt that the admins were reputable and above board. What I see happened is they panicked. "The Vandals are at the gates...Save the articles...Quick! Grab Your Weapons!!!!!....Fortify the WALL!!!!. But, as it turns out, it's not vandals (well, maybe a few snuck in)...its just a bunch of braying blue donkeys (Democrats) and Good Faith Editors who want to nose around ("hoi-paloi") and "commoners" who you can never trust to do what is expected. Wikipedia does not need Elitism. Jimbo does not convey it...he warns against it. Just as the election of 2008 may be a turning point for the U.S., the future of freedom at WikiWorld is also at a precipace. As a member of the WikiProletariat (lol) I must be free to wander where my mouse and curiosity take me. Are these the first bricks of a Wikipedian "Berlin Wall"?Stay in touch...thank you.--Buster7 (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Latrun

Greetings, Steven, and thanks for your cleanup edits on the Battle of Latrun page. As you may have gathered or read in past edit summaries and on the discussion page, the article is being translated in stages by Ceedjee, the author of the featured article on this topic in the French Wikipedia. I've undertaken to copyedit the English (including, to some extent, the nomenclature and wikifying). However, it's turned out that my availability to do so in a timely fashion is inadequate, so your help is certainly welcome! May I suggest: if you have content-based queries about unclear wording, please note these on the article's discussion page, which will make others' follow-up easier than searching among edit versions. (I've found it sometimes helps to read the French article in tandem; many of the terms are cognates or faux amis.) Thanks for your help! -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I Married a Witch

Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I moved the "Bewitched" section that you removed to the talk page of this article. I don't disagree with your deletion -- I almost did it myself a few months ago -- but I think that if someone comes up with a citation to show the existence of the "common belief" it would probably be sufficient to reinsert the material, and I didn't want it to be lost in the article's history.

Just wanted to say that no criticism of your edit is intended. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You were Right About The Template Add

First, I re-read your reply and you were right about the Template add. That was back in May when I had no idea what a Template was and I almost assuredly thought I was adding to a category or see also list. I would certainly not have added them to the Template had I even known what a Template was then: Mondale had only one brief meeting with Jones, after which he said some nice things, and Carter and Jones met only a few times and exchanged letters thereafter.

I would have added an apology to you on the ANI page, but Cirt suggested that I stop continuing the argument on that page section because it was not constructive. I certainly agree with his assessment.

Second, I really wish to stop sniping about all of these issues. I'm referring to myself as much as anyone. I was drawn into a nasty battle on the Milk page for which I am partly responsible. The end point being, I'd like to end it.

Third, to be clear I do NOT believe in some odd conspiracy re The Peoples Temple. In fact, I expended considerable effort to delete non-sourced crazy conspiracies about the CIA killing all of the Temple members on various pages. Without going into history, I am about as anti-conspiracy theory as it gets.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Our Messianic Friend

I see our friend is back with the Orthodox Jewish Bible. I just noticed that there's no citation for the book. Although I'm reticent to use his site, shouldn't we hang some kind of reference on there? If I get some time (doubtful tonight) I'll try to find something. Maybe HIS site links another site that at least has a reputable looking note. I don't know. Any thoughts? Tim (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source to link to, be my guest. I still think there are WP:WEIGHT issues about mentioning it at all. But that might be just because I'm so fed up with hearing about it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm fed up too -- but what grates me is the nature of the work and the web site. David Stern's version is one thing. But this guy's work is practically unreadable. It offends me as a translator! ;-) Tim (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, Tim, there's a part of WP:UNDUE that says certain aspects of the subject of an article are so insignificant that any mention of them at all is undue weight. I suppose that if we developed a consensus that this applies to OJB, we could delete all mention of it.
Hey, wait a minute, as I recall, was blacklisted. How did it even get added? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I missed the blacklisting -- how does that work? Test: [6] Tim (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it worked. As for undue... Messianics are so small, how tiny does something need to be?Tim (talk) 01:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
How small is all a matter of consensus. If it worked how was he able to save this edit with the link in? Look at WP:BLACKLIST. And I don't think that's our old friend. Inigmatus has been around too long. He probably just googled OJB, found a link and added it. I have to sign off for tonight. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
No -- I mean the link worked when I added it here. I'll try to get a feel for the sales figures on Amazon tomorrow to get an idea of how big it is. And there's also an issue of notoriety. Something could be small but notorious because of it's nature... like a brain eating amoeba. It only kills a few people a year, but it's so heinous by nature that it probably has it's own article. Here we have an "Orthodox Jewish Bible." The very name is indicative of the worst indictments made against the Messianic Jewish movement as a whole: deception. It's like Ahmadinijad posing with some adoring Rabbis. Those Rabbis are part of a ridiculously tiny sect, but they are notorious by what they are doing, rather than the size of their group. Anyhow -- I'm off to bed as well. Night. Tim (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion requested

Hi Steven. User:PiCo and I are having a bit of a dispute in The Exodus. Much of it has been discussed on the talk page under "Dead Reckoning". As a first step in dispute resolution (second, really, after trying to hash it out ourselves), I was hoping you could drop by and give your opinion. I know you've posted there already, but if you could chime in on the current dispute, it would be very helpful. Thanks. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Hi, Steven J.

First of all, I want to present myself. I am Spanish, I'm 43 years old and I give lessons of geography and history in institutes of Spain. I have been more than 20 years dedicated to the education. Several weeks ago, a friend encouraged me to take part in Wikipedia. I had used it often, but I hadn't imagined to participate in it. More than 2 weeks ago I tried to register my name to write for the Spanish Wikipedia, but the program told me that my account was annulled by vandalism. I was very surprised, because I had never written before for the encyclopedia. yesterday night was the first time I tried to do it. I couldn't do it in Spanish, but I did it in French and English Wikipedias.

My intention was to make interested readers know that there were 2 more books available about some subjects. Beside giving lessons, I've written numerous articles, translated and adapted children books from French to Spanish (Hemma Editions) and written several books. A few months ago I decided to go to the autopublication market to publish my last 2 books. Not many people are interested in 2 books about Jewish history, and the topic is not very profitable. You must remember that companies, also on the publishing market, are mainly interested in money. My books are about the history of the Jewish people, and I've been dedicating more than 6 years in writing those 800 pages, which include more than 2000 notes and bibliographical references. Like almost everybody, when I do something I consider uselful for others, I try to make it known and available. My books include bibliography in Spanish, English and French, these two that more or less I understand and that I have been using constantly to consult works of other authors

I thought that mentioning my book in the bibliography of some of the topics included in the books would be a good idea. Why not? In those 800 pages I write about the history of the Jewish people from the beginning to now, with continuous references to religion, relations between judaism and christianity, culture, and many pages about the life of the Jews in Spain, the Holocaust, the Jewish identity or the conflict of Middle East. I can assure you that, as far as I know, not many books treat all these topics on a global way. I'm sure I've committed mistakes in the process of including my books in the bibliography of several articles, because, as I told you, it's the first time I've written for Wikipedia, and because I have very few knowledge of computers. I am a simple and distracted historian, even incapable for driving!

What I cannot understand is why you say that a book in Spanish is not useful for English readers. At present, most of students and professionals speak several languages. As I told you before, I have used numerous books in English and in French to write my books, and I would have liked to speak other languages to have used works of other authors. I also want to remind you that, in fact, many Wikipedia articles are written by students, and some of them make mistakes in their collaborations. As for the quality of my work, I think that the books must be read before say something about them. With your way of thinking, as historian I can assure you that the majority of the big creators of the History might not have been known. Most of the great geniuses have had difficulties in their lives.

With this I do not want to say that my books are wonderful. Simply, I'd like them to be judged after reading them. I encourage you to read the Introduction of those books. You can do it by Internet. And if you don't speak Spanish, many people in USA can translate it for you. Anyhow, I encourage you to learn languages. In Europe it's very normal to speak several languages. In Spain, for example, there are more than 5 regional languages that people speak normally. In addition, pupils must learn other languages (English, French, German, Italian, Portuguese...) at school. I'll finish soon. Only to ask for pardon -to you and to the other wikiwriters- for the mistakes I've committed. I remember specially one: in one of the articles I accidentally erased a list of books that was not specified in the edit page. I didn't know how to arrange it, and I had a bad time.

I encourage you once again to read on Internet the Introduction of my books. You can also find some of my other works writing in Internet my name and surname (Juan Pedro Cavero) or my 2 surnames (Cavero Coll).

I've tried to contact a young girl called Jennavecia, but I haven't enough knowledge to do it. She erased my books in the voice "Inquisition", a topic also included in one of my books. With you has been easier to contact, at least for me.

I say goodbye encouraging you to write me if you want. My e-mail (redacted for privacy of newer user)

And, dear Steven... be careful! I'm writing you with the same computer that yesterday night, but from another place. I don't know, but maybe my IP has changed. Nevertheless I'm the same, although a few older!

My best wishes, Juan Pedro Cavero Coll (Spain) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

God in Judaism

I can quote you dozens of passages from the Torah and the Tanakh to justify why "God in Judaism" belongs in "category: fictional murderers":

"And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon." (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

"You should not let a sorceress live." (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

"A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death." (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:15 NAB)

"All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense." (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

"A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death." (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

"If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through." (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

"But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girl's virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

"If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods ... kill him." (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB) "Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel." (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

"The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death" (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)

"But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.' You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?' If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared." (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)

"So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too." (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)

"...anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death." (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces." (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

"And he smote of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of Jehovah, he smote of the people seventy men, `and' fifty thousand men; and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great slaughter." (1Samuel 6:19-20 ASV)

"Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him." (1 Kings 20:35-36 NLT) "Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God to steady it, for the oxen were making it tip. But the Lord was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God." (2 Samuel 6:3-7 NAB)

"Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers..." (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

"...And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens..." (Jeremiah 51:20-26)

"I will release wild animals that will kill your children..." (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

(The Lord saves Sampson from standing trial for 30 murders and arson by allowing him to kill 1000 more men.) "When he reached Lehi, and the Philistines came shouting to meet him, the spirit of the Lord came upon him: the ropes around his arms become as flax that is consumed by fire and the bonds melted away from his hands. Near him was the fresh jawbone of an ass; he reached out, grasped it, and with it killed a thousand men." (Judges 15:14-15 NAB)

"Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood." (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

"I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD." (Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT)

"My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out." (Exodus 23:23 NAB) "The men of Israel withdrew through the territory of the Benjaminites, putting to the sword the inhabitants of the city, the livestock, and all they chanced upon. Moreover they destroyed by fire all the cities they came upon." (Judges 20:48 NAB)

"That night the angel of the Lord went forth and struck down one hundred and eighty five thousand men in the Assyrian camp." (2 Kings 19:35 NAB)

"He told them, 'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors.' The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, 'Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing.'" (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT)

For secondary sources, try The God Delusion and God is not Great. God in Islam and God in Christianity should also be added to the category. Jwray (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You should take this to the article talk page, not here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)