Lots of Christianity related fun! :)
Thanks for "following" him around and getting rid of his nonsense. -- MessengerAtLWU 18:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...nonsense. Just like reading the bible literally.
This is twice now that I've found myself in dispute with people who feel dictionary definitions (half-sibling, entombment) are OR and POV. Am I crazy, or does logic suddenly violate NPOV? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 20:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I saw the you premoted DNA Resequencer (Stargate) to a good article. I have been trying to get that on the list for weeks. Thanks. Also, do you think it's good enough to be a featured article? Tobyk777 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
There aren't any more pics because there are no more pics. those are the only 2 on the net. Tobyk777 23:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, 2+2=4, but some people feel that "=" is OR and "4" is POV. Check these comments in addition to Drogo's remarks at Talk:Jesus. RfC? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 03:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikibreak over ;) Homestarmy, I was talking about an article RfC on Jesus rather than a user RfC against Drogo. It looks like we might be ready to move forward on Talk:Jesus—assuming you don't mind another vote. Grigory Deepdelver Talk 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken Talk |
Thanks for reviewing this article! After I get finished with my midterms this week I am going to go through some books I checked out on Pius, particularly to make sure that the post-war section is complete. After that, unless the peer review turns up serious problems, I may try taking a pass at a FA nom. savidan (talk) (e@) 19:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It appears to be over. Not too many comments. Okay, besides you and me, there was one comment.
Ah, well. We have enough to do as it is. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Feedback please. - Roy Boy 800 04:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Feedback please for Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph#Version_5.2, key difference is mention of non-viability. - Roy Boy 800 15:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Since you're having so much fun editing Chicago for the Good Article Collaberation, I thought I'd let you know that it looks like either Rome or Belgrade will be the next week's Article Improvement Drive. Unless you're getting tired of editing city articles. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know anymore. There's a tool on the German Wikipedia, but It's no longer being updated. I haven't been able to get the other tools to work. BTW, your Edits/page (avg) was 6.50 at last count. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 03:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
File:Danavecpurpletiger.jpg | A belated thank you to you for Supporting my RFA! I am still finding my feet as an Administrator, and so far I am enjoying the experience. I am honoured that you felt I was ready to take up this position, and wish to thank you formally! I hope I can live up to your expectations of me. Once again, thank you! -- Darth Deskana (talk page) 18:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC) |
I honestly don't know how being born again equals complete proof of all Christian doctrine, maybe you can explain to me what being born again actual means, and why it is such an absolute event. Truth is something none of us will ever know completely, unless of course there is some event called "being born again" which ultimately proves things. As I was saying, applying this philosophy (that nothing is certain) to everyday life is dangerous, because there certainly is knowledge which can be used to predict future events and guide us through our lives. Currently, the scientific method is the best method for determining what is true, and what is not true with certainty, because it predicts the future more accurately than any other method of reasoning. It allows us to create great things and make correct decisions. It is, however, neither a religion nor a philosophy, and it is not designed to handle moral issues. When I talk about truth here, I am not talking about absolute truth, because no one but God "if he exists" could know it. The word fact, however, looses all meaning if it is applied to this notion of absolute truth; therefore, facts are used to label things which are true in the traditional sense. If I see a yellow car, it is a fact that the yellow car exists. I'm not going to analyze it absolutely and say,.. well,.. My senses are imperfect and it might not really be a yellow car. That will lead to insanity and probably end up making me travel around wikipedia arguing young earth ideas. My main concern was with scorpionmans statement that "Science has never proven anything to be fact!". No other method for predicting future events has proven to be as accurate as the scientific method. I never said it is perfect, but it is the best method we have for understanding truth within the limits of human understanding.-- 146.244.137.178 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I know of no Mormon group that would clam to be henotheistic. I went a read the article on WIKI (I think it may need some editing; it claims Christians are Heno and Mormons, but does not give any reference). To rightfully be called henotheistic one must have a pantheon of gods to choose from and then one chooses to worshp a single god within the pantheon. Although LDS have speculated that there may be other gods in the universe, there is not a pantheon of gods to worship. There is one God and no other.
In my entire life I have never considered myself anything but monotheistic. For LDS, there is no choice of who to worship because there is only one God. I would ask you to study more about henotheism before leveling that claim again. Yes, I am aware of what others might claim Mormons to be, but I always like to hear it straight from the horses mouth. To find out how to build a watch, one does not go to the butcher. The butcher might have some ideas, but he does not know how to build a watch. When you want to know what a LDS believes, ask. It saves times, misinformation (generally) and communication has never harmed anyone. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I have set up my own wiki, and I have just uploaded a Public Domain version of Genesis. However the page is extremely long and needs to be split up into smaller pages. This is not something I would be able to do as I have little interest or knowledge on the subject but perhaps you might be interested in having a look at it. http://www.gmcfoley.com/wiki/index.php?title=Bible/Genesis. I also have Public Domain versions of the other books which I would be happy to upload if someone was interested in formatting them. I should also point out that my entire wiki is Public Domain also. Please let me know if you are interested. Thanks, Gerard Foley 03:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Homestarmy, would you be willing to keep an eye on "Christianity"? Several editors are trying to make the intro hedge on whether or not it's monotheism. — Aiden 06:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I've noticed that you've been active on the Userbox deletion page, either strongly FOR or AGAINST the use of the new T2 for deleting userboxes. I have noticed that most of the community is strong in their opinions on this issue; for that reason, I created my own proposal which attempts to create a middle ground for the two groups, and finally get this debate settled once and for all. I welcome your input into the proposal, as well as your (non-binding) vote on the straw poll. Thanks! // The True Sora 01:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Homes! Can you explain to me how to go about joining the project, how it works and what I would be expected to do if I signed on? -- CTSWyneken 17:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that the unmentionable site is down. All that's there now is a directory listing. I'll take your earlier remark as a prophecy that has come to pass ;) Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 06:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Since you earlier were involved in some discussion on possibly merging this article, would you come to the Talk page and give some feedback to my suggestion that this article be redirected to Christology? -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
that edit was by accident, I got a error and nothing was changed Tjb891
When I tried to follow your link, it took me to a non-accessible site, pay site if you will. That's probably why someone removed it. It certainly would be preferrable if you had a site that was publicly accessible or retrievable from a library.
This may interest you: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity#Ray_Comfort. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 04:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
While visiting Storm Rider's talk page, I saw your note. So forgive my eavesdropping, but a recent book might be helpful to you. Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding, by BYU alumni Trent Stephens and Jeffrey Meldrum, with Forrest Peterson. A review of the book by Melvin N. Westwood summarized the findings as follows:
Hope that helps a little, but I suspect the "average" Mormon would tell you that he/she does not believe in evolution. Please note I'm not average in that respect. The Church, however, still affirms the 1909 statement on the subject which did not reject evolution. Best wishes. WBardwin 20:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the trouble to review the above for "Good article" candidacy (which, incidentally, I neither solicited nor desired). I have posted replies to your queries on the relevant talk page, and copy them here in case you have not added it to your watch list. Mikedash 14:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
NPOV?
The article is, necessarily, based on the information available. I put in as much balance as I could; Roose is described as reckless, for instance, and there's a section on his bad temper. Thre simply aren't that many more criticisms on record, certainly not without going back and doing a match-by-match study of his playing career. There was just a lot more hero worship in those days, I suppose.
As to the specific criticisms, "Roose was renowned as one of the best players in his position in the Edwardian period" is simply true, and note that it is not given as my opinion - "Was one of the best players" - but as reported fact: "Was renowned as...". This usage is justified in the text - cf. his selection to a "World XI". Would it really be POV to apply such judgements to Banks or Yashin, say? "Roose was well qualified to play in goal" is similarly justified, in terms of his height and weight, and the reasons for this, given the footballing style of the period, are explained.
Eccentricity: it's a contentious topic, of course - one man's eccentric is another's beacon of sanity - but, again, I think it is beyond question that Roose was regarded as eccentric, and probably played up to the image. I refer you to the following citations (full bibliographical information for the books can be found in the references to the article):
Finally, discussion of the number of clean sheets kept by the player - "A remarkable record not least because his team flirted dangerously with relegation in 1901, 1902 and 1904" - does, I concede, require some statistical justification, but I'm happy to provide it; if we look at, say, the record of Portsmouth, the team finishing fourth from bottom of the Premiership this season, one above the relegation places, we see that the team kept only 5 clean sheets in its 38 games, or 13.1%, compared to Roose's record of 27.8% clean sheets at Stoke ( http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/teams/Portsmouth.html). Hope this helps deal with your questions.
at the top of your edit will move your text below any graphic.
Herostratus
17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I nominated Pope Pius XII to be a Featured Article. As you promoted this article to Good Article status some time ago, I thought that you might have some perspective on how the article stacks up against the featured article criteria. You are the only person I know of currently who is (somewhat) familiar with the article without having invested so much time in it as to be biased. I would appreciate your comments at the nomination page linked above, whether or not you choose to join me in supporting the article. savidan (talk) (e@) 22:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I see that you've made several comments at the Talk:25 December page, and I was hoping that you could please add your vote to the straw poll, as there appear to be two users that are bent on not having Jesus mentioned in the article. — ` CRAZY` (IN)` SANE` 20:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Which verses would you sort of like to know? Dan Watts 01:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
There are multiple sources referenced, both for the history of the domesticated banana, and for the existence of multiple banana species (most of which aren't really very palatable), in the article on bananas.
Domesticated bananas are to wild bananas as corn-on-the-cob is to teosinte - and you might not be aware of this, but the domesticated banana has been bred such that it's incapable of reproducing without human intervention. Wild bananas, conversely, do just fine. DS 17:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I left a note on the Peace Dollar talk page, regarding your comments on its Good Article nomination. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any other questions or concerns. Thanks! -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
"I find it hard to believe that the publishers would let his book slide by mis-spelled"
Thank you for the message. Perhaps I should have phrased my edit summary better. As the article states, "The long-term goal of Jews for Jesus is one of conversion of all Jews to accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah — a position which is usually characterised as Christianity." Islam is completely out of picture here. ← Humus sapiens ну? 07:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, for correcting me. Str1977 (smile back) 17:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed your interest in this, and I REALLY want this thing to be featured, and I think we should be able to work together on this, especially because the people at WP:FF are working on other projects, meaning without you, I'm really on my own on this, and I can't do this alone, as you know. I'm adding some sections so that they match up with FFVIII and FFX, two of the best FF articles. I need your help with rewriting prose, adding material, removing redundancy, and making sure everything, even storyline material, is properly referenced. We need to recruit some more people. Crazyswordsman 22:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you please be a tad more informative on the H-K-T talk page? I mean, what's specifically wrong with that article, or what is it that is not covered sufficiently? AFAICT all notable facts are already mentioned and I'm not really sure what is it that you mean. Thanks in advance. Halibutt
Replied there.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The Restorationism article is in terrible shape. Amongst its many problems is a complete lack of citations. Do you have any online resources that you feel might help in a cleanup of that article? Everything from style and form to grammar needs attention; I'm willing to do a chunk of the work in cleanup, but I don't have the source background to do it right. Anything you can direct me towards would be appreciated. Thanks, - Kevin/Last1in 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't begin to tell you how many times I've confused your username with HOTR's. Sorry for any frustration my boobheadedness may have caused. FeloniousMonk 18:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but when I checked this article, all I saw was Highway failing it, and there's no entry on the disputes page, why was this article relisted? Homestarmy 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
you look like the same guy ... -- BenMcLean 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it is good to include the JW information on that page, although I think that it would be better to put it in a separate section for JWs, perhaps with a note that they are not considered to be Christians by mainstream Christian denominations. BenC7 04:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I intend to ignore it, even though Mantanmoreland has been more than a bit troublesome to me. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a discussion page for this kind of article nom? Voting? A way to contest a fail if it is done by a significant contributor? Look at the failed FA nom if you wonder why I ask.
Bob-- CTSWyneken (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we add {{ sprotect}} to articles that are being heavily vandalised by anon vandals? Do we just put it at the top of the page somewhere? ross nixon 02:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the objections to this link. I have nothing to do whatsoever with PBS. It is a free website, it discusses a frontline series done over christianity (4 tapes long) in 1998. Please relook.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/
if you click on one of the faces it will display several links
I have tried to find a more worthy "entry" page but that is the only one they provide. I believe the navigator is supposed to click on the faces.
If you are to click on some of the links..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/
For example, you have access to all of the articles explaining his life, existance, etc.
I have not encountered a single pay advertisement. The website is for those to share the information from the broadcast in 1998. PBS is free anyway and it's directly from their website.
I have used their links to cite sources throughout facebook. Most notably http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus#Scholarly_Consensus , the Bishop Irenaeus quote is invaluable, only found from the PBS material.
It is not transcripts. It contains scholary articles written from some of the most informed in the field, it's a WEALTH of information. Reading the articles will unravel many things unknown.
You bring up some good issues and I am concerned with the same things as well. I uncovered the link while doing my own research on Christianity and it provided numerous lectures by scholars about Christian history.
This for instance includes a lecture given by Michael White at Harvard on the controversies surrounding Jesus' tomb. Paul, the earliest writer in the New Testament speaks of no tomb, Jesus simply ascends. The gospel of Mark has Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Salome approach Jesus' tomb to annoint his body, however on they way there they ponder how to roll back the rock covering its enterance. They eventually find out its rolled back already, they enter and a "man" dressed in white tells them Jesus has ascended into heaven.
Matthew however has just Mary and Mary Magdalene visit the tomb, not to annoint the body, because he is the first to insert guards there. This changes the scenario set by the earliest gospel in Mark, and then for Matthew an "angel" comes by and strikes the guards dead, he tells both Marys that jesus has ascended and then they walk into the tomb to check it out for themselves.
Such scholarly incite is imperative for people interested in christianity. I acknowledge that the link you showed me can be seen as "shady" but its goal is simply to give the individual an oppurtunity to buy the old documentary. The navigation is not great, however the website intends for the user to browse through the articles.
Also quite a humorous thing is Bishop Iraenous of 170AD France, he led the movement to classify all Gospels but Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as Gnostic because there were "four corners to the universe and four principle winds". He also thought they were written by Jesus' original disciples and this is not the case as well.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/emergence.html
I would very much like if you could help me find a better "entry" page. I do not want others to be turned off by their offer to sell their documentary however I know of no other link that has access to all of their educational articles.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/
If you go to the above and click 'an overview of the four gospels', they might be able to inform you of certain things.
The first gospel, the gospel of Mark, was revolutionary. I was just readng from this earlier and I'll pull the quote,
Whether as a reponse to the Jewish War (66-70) or to the deaths of the earliest followrs of Jesus, or to the need of a definitive version of Jesus' life, or to objectionable theological trends, the author of the Gospel of Mark recast traditional materials into a dramatic narrative climaxing in Jesus' death. It is not clear precisely what kind of book the author set out to compose, insofar as no document written prior to Mark exactly conforms with its literary properties. Its themes of travel, conflict with supernatural foes, suffering, and secrecy resonate with Homer's Odyssey and Greek romantic novels. Its focus on the character, identity, and death of a single individual reminds one of ancient biographies. It's dialogues, tragic outcome, and puculiar ending call to mind Greek drama. Some have suggested that the author created a new, mixed genre for narrating the life and death of Jesus.
Dennis R MacDonald, Early Christian Literature (Found in Oxford study bible referring the Gospel of Mark )
It seems he was simply taking the historical life of Jesus and making it a theological story, one where he played the role of a Messiah. His gospel would be the gospel that Matthew (the most frequently referenced gospel in antiquity) and luke pulled from. They also used some source Q that is now lost. Some speculate its the Gospel of Thomas.
The "it seems that the Gospels are increadibly embellished myths" is simply an inference to literary parallels. The gospels are their own literary work, they pull from other works. The book of Revelation even calls Hell 'Hades', a reference to the ancient greek Olympian God (named Hades).
It may seem 'mean' I suppose, but most facts that infer new viewpoints must discredit others. The information is still objective.
I very much love biblical scholarship because it requires people to suspend their own prophetic views. I had one guy claim David was 'right' to kill Uria and David committing adultery was perfectly fine, the guy was jewish, if he actually thought it was 'right' then he would be disagreeing with his own version of scripture and David's everlasting monarchy wouldn't have fallen.
I think it's imperative to leave links like the one posted. It is "multiple views" but they are only multiple because they conflict with scripture, the origins of which are worthy of their own study. 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know that Slim Virgin, who is actively involved in the editing of Martin Luther has failed the nom without comment on the talk page, removing all trace of the nom. This is something like I expected would happen. Thanks for trying, anyway. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Would you review this one? I need to recuse, since I waded in to help convert old reference style to the new, inline variety. Thanks! Bob-- CTSWyneken (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the nomination for GA on the above page, you said: "I've put the GA nomination on hold, because the introduction is one sentence long, I really don't think that summarizes an article of this size very well as per WP:LEAD, it will need to be expanded out to summarize the article, preferably in one or two paragraphs detailing the most important stuff or something." I ask that you re-evaluate the lead, as I have changed it in heed with your suggestions. Thanks, Daniel. Bryant 04:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey there. I've added to the short LEAD for the Diego Maradona article and have broken up the previously long LEAD for the Rallying article. Do you fancy taking another look? Regards SeanMack 04:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The Martin Luther article has been nominated for Good Article status. A reviewer dropped by and said that everything but the Luther and Antisemitism section qualified. Unser Mantanmoreland said, in effect, the section was just fine but the restof the article was hagiographic. While I intend to leave the issue well enough alone, I thought you might be interested in helping see if he will offer us some suggestions. (or offering your own, for that matter).-- CTSWyneken (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you direct me to the page where it was decided that Capitalism no longer met the criteria for a Good Article...I see the template was change by you on the article talk page here. Thanks!-- MONGO 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay thanks for that.-- MONGO 17:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to be away for a little bit so I thought sprotecting an article under anon attack is justified. I clicked Save before I wrote that I'm reverting to the last ver. by Ian Pitchford. I'd appreciate if more people watch and revert POV & OR edits. Thanks. ← Humus sapiens ну? 22:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
How have you been? Haven't seen you around CKB (wikia) lately, and ChristWiki (relately) seems dead. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
There were 16 CKB users active in August. ChristWiki is a ghosttown. I noticed that CarmPedia is down. This is evangelism? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 23:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've posted a reply to your note on my user page: User_talk:StephenFerg I hope that is the proper technique for replying. If not, let me know. I'm a relative Wikipedia newbie, and still learning. (August 29, 2006 10pm EST) -- Steve Ferg
Would you take a look at the current discussion and advise if you think I'm crazy? -- CTSWyneken (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
A couple of editors are of the opinion that Abraham was a Polygamist, so they have added Cat:Polygamist. See talk:Abraham I have doubts as to the validity of this classification. I think this was more a 'rent-a-womb' scheme than a marriage to Hagar. Do you have an opinion? I wonder if this is a LDS / Mormon attempt to add respectability to Polygamy? rossnixon 05:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
{{Portal:Bible/Featured chapter/Template}}. Thought you might be interested.
hey homestarm --
after being blocked and seeing 'paradoxtom' be blocked and get very upset about it, i decided to put together some suggestions for changing 3RR. come take a look at my policy proposal changes at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Proposed_policy_changes
i think they could prevent a good portion of the conflict that comes with 3RR. comments are welcome.
Justforasecond 16:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The Working Man's Barnstar | ||
Awarded to Homestarmy for tireless work on Good Article Candidates and Good Article Review. Your dedication and contributions help to make Wikipedia a better project. Thank you. |
As I was looking at the Good Article Review archives and other Good Articles, I kept seeing your name everywhere :P I figure such work deserves recognition and I wanted to thank you for all that you've done. Agne 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
They've all been fixed. The NHC recently changed the URLs to all their archived stuff for this year. BTW, looking at your userpage, I think NationStates players need our own userbox! Heh. – Ch acor 13:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I'm am not 100% sure what is being asked though. Do you want me to just list the criteria and put passes next to each one? I do try to check everything and my standards are close to those that have been discussed on Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates recently. I will be happy to comply with any new standards the project sets but there isn't much to say when it meets everything, unlike one that fails where I do always leave specific criticism. I see that the instructions now ask one to leave a comment when passing an article. That must have been added since the last time I looked at them closely. Eluchil404 15:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
By what process did inline citations become a requirement for GA? I've seen (and participated in) discussions on the criteria page and the candidates page, but there's no consensus as far as I can see. I certainly don't think you should be delisting articles based on that, when the change is less than a day old. Kafziel 17:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You realize how much your statement would annoy the IDers? JoshuaZ 01:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
To clarify: the reason it would annoy IDers is that your statement depicted ID and creationism as interchangeable. "the same attitude all of the creationism-related articles have, `There is no dispute about evolution, and ID'ers are basically lying about this." It was, in any event, meant as a possibly humorous sidenote. JoshuaZ 05:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion going on in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow-white Miriam about whether to delete this article. You might want to present your views there. Best, -- Shirahadasha 19:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking that out. I never noticed it was in there but it is almost certainly false. Some really extreme evangelicals in fact accuse Kennedy of being too eucemincal with the Roman Catholics. See for example [2]. JoshuaZ 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I have read the article 2 times. Then afterward, went out to read both of what sounded like reliable sources (and were) and found that all the material that was found in the article pertained to both references in question. From this, I added the inline citation so you wouldn't have to re-review the article pertaining to the 2b criteria and so I assessed the article as having enough of everything. If, on the contrary, you still think some unsourced statements should be cited, feel free to discuss them, I will father the article for that matter only.
We can now use this article to show people that even if there aren't many references and really very few inline citations the article can still be called a good article. Lincher 01:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems to of removed a Typhoon and Black Marsh, and I think those are both still GA's :/. Homestarmy 00:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope you now see the problem I was trying to illustrate. User:Agne27 was a dream compared to what's going on now. We have a user going on the rampage basically telling us that every article I contribute to is "noncompliant". This citation madness needs to stop! Thanks for your help in pointing out that delisting guidelines say a review needs to be done. -- ScienceApologist 04:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. My point was that in all due respect I thought Film maker was wrong to delete my nomination, my GA Nominee tag, and to put up a Former GA Canidate in its place vs. simply leaving a "disagree" apply on the nomination page. Yet, if all of those things are an automatic thing when one posts a "disagree" then I understand. Yet, I understand your point too I think that one can post replys quickly. If I'm confusing what you said I'm sorry. Thanks again. DavidWJohnson 22:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your GA failings. Altough it would be nice if you wouldn't change the top counter and let the bot do it as it creates an extra edit, messes the count, and because your the only one who really does it. I mean no harm and if you like doing it, you can continue. :) Lincher 00:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
That was an unusal scripture to use (John 10:34-36, I think that is what you meant). Christ was quoting Psalms 82:1, 6, which reads:
This is beside the point, but a LDS would use this scripture in other ways. For example, Psalms states that God is standing in the congregation of the mighty, or among the gods. Who are gods? Verse 6, the one Jesus was quoting, states plainly that at least some of the ones he was talking about were children of the most High, which are called gods.
It is important to recognize that there is one God or Godhead and that gods are not the equivalent of God. My purpose in pointing this out is that I thought it was an interesting choice of scripture. These are some of the basic scriptures that we use to demonstrate that we are children of the most High and can become gods. Personally, I still don't care for the statement, "we can become gods". It always seems to stick in my craw when I say it. It is beyond my comprehension that God would extend this gift to me. Jesus is recorded in the Book of Revelations 3:21 as saying, "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." What a glorious promise and yet it is also beyond my understanding. Mormons don't create their theology, but everything we believe, or the vast majority, is found within the Bible. The Book of Mormon teaches very few unique teachings; it mainly is a second witness to jew and gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
I appreciate your participation on WIKI. I can be a bit abrasive and hope that we can continue to improve WIKI articles that are centered on Jesus Christ. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Homestar, I must say that I haven't a clue about the cartoon you referenced or the character cited. I must be showing my age. A few points: I would not get too hung up on punctuation; the punctuation you are referring did not exist in the known texts. They are a fabrication of different translations; thus the NIV's use of quotes where the KJV does not have any. Second, in reality LDS don't dwell too much on this concept of godhood. It is sensationalized by those critical of the church; however, we see the purpose of creation fulfilled in the teaching of eternal progression. I think you find many verses in the scriptures that discusses plurality of gods; just do a search. There is one Godhead and one Heavenly Father. He will always be our Heavenly Father throughout eternity. Getting back to my analogy, a child is never the equal of his parents; it is even more so with God. This term "god" has no relationship to God. Jesus said we would be co-inheritors with Him. He is the one who said we were gods and children of God. What does co-inheritor mean to you? I have a difficult time not taking Him at His word. The second to last sentence you thought was creepy was "We will become co-inheritors with Jesus Christ." Do you want a reference for it in the Bible? Storm Rider (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a message for the one who deleted the link African Holocaust. I dont care if you think it is spamming the facts are this site deals with slavery. If Steven Hawkins contributed to "Black Holes" would you delete it. You can only delete a link for a valid reason. the site deals with slavery in debt, hence it is relevant. the film on slavery is a film on slavery. all of these things are facts, so there is zero reason to remove the link. Films on slavery--then it is 500 Years Later isnt it a film on Slavery? so leave it alone---- Halaqah 15:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Halaqah 15:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to remove your message from my talk page, as I assume it wasn't meant for me and is likely to confuse things in this already confused conversation. Cheers Yomangani talk 15:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, the red link you fixed over at Jesus was due to this recent AfD. Peyna 01:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - it's good to know he's ok. Sophia 17:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I would have reverted that too if I'd seen it...the note about "Birth of Jesus" that you reinstated is there to try to slow down the dimwits who insist on adding an entry for year 0 (no such year) or year 1 or whatever for Jesus. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You are right that did not have any thing to do with creationism at all.-- Sea dog .M.S 22:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
About the Werdnabot thing, from what I know it can be used on any talk page. The Esperanza page seems to make good use of it and besides it will hopefully make archiving jobs a little bit easier. In fact if it works well we should try it on other talk pages. However I don't really know much else about it, if you have any other questions you might want to ask Werdna about it. Tarret 01:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello - I noticed you downgraded the article fitness landscape from "good article". You did not leave any reason why or a list of what you considered must be done to restore it to the status of a good article. Could you do this, because I would like to improve the article if possible. Thanks - PAR 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Lots of Christianity related fun! :)
Thanks for "following" him around and getting rid of his nonsense. -- MessengerAtLWU 18:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm...nonsense. Just like reading the bible literally.
This is twice now that I've found myself in dispute with people who feel dictionary definitions (half-sibling, entombment) are OR and POV. Am I crazy, or does logic suddenly violate NPOV? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 20:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I saw the you premoted DNA Resequencer (Stargate) to a good article. I have been trying to get that on the list for weeks. Thanks. Also, do you think it's good enough to be a featured article? Tobyk777 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
There aren't any more pics because there are no more pics. those are the only 2 on the net. Tobyk777 23:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, 2+2=4, but some people feel that "=" is OR and "4" is POV. Check these comments in addition to Drogo's remarks at Talk:Jesus. RfC? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 03:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikibreak over ;) Homestarmy, I was talking about an article RfC on Jesus rather than a user RfC against Drogo. It looks like we might be ready to move forward on Talk:Jesus—assuming you don't mind another vote. Grigory Deepdelver Talk 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken Talk |
Thanks for reviewing this article! After I get finished with my midterms this week I am going to go through some books I checked out on Pius, particularly to make sure that the post-war section is complete. After that, unless the peer review turns up serious problems, I may try taking a pass at a FA nom. savidan (talk) (e@) 19:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It appears to be over. Not too many comments. Okay, besides you and me, there was one comment.
Ah, well. We have enough to do as it is. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Feedback please. - Roy Boy 800 04:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Feedback please for Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph#Version_5.2, key difference is mention of non-viability. - Roy Boy 800 15:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Since you're having so much fun editing Chicago for the Good Article Collaberation, I thought I'd let you know that it looks like either Rome or Belgrade will be the next week's Article Improvement Drive. Unless you're getting tired of editing city articles. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know anymore. There's a tool on the German Wikipedia, but It's no longer being updated. I haven't been able to get the other tools to work. BTW, your Edits/page (avg) was 6.50 at last count. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 03:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
File:Danavecpurpletiger.jpg | A belated thank you to you for Supporting my RFA! I am still finding my feet as an Administrator, and so far I am enjoying the experience. I am honoured that you felt I was ready to take up this position, and wish to thank you formally! I hope I can live up to your expectations of me. Once again, thank you! -- Darth Deskana (talk page) 18:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC) |
I honestly don't know how being born again equals complete proof of all Christian doctrine, maybe you can explain to me what being born again actual means, and why it is such an absolute event. Truth is something none of us will ever know completely, unless of course there is some event called "being born again" which ultimately proves things. As I was saying, applying this philosophy (that nothing is certain) to everyday life is dangerous, because there certainly is knowledge which can be used to predict future events and guide us through our lives. Currently, the scientific method is the best method for determining what is true, and what is not true with certainty, because it predicts the future more accurately than any other method of reasoning. It allows us to create great things and make correct decisions. It is, however, neither a religion nor a philosophy, and it is not designed to handle moral issues. When I talk about truth here, I am not talking about absolute truth, because no one but God "if he exists" could know it. The word fact, however, looses all meaning if it is applied to this notion of absolute truth; therefore, facts are used to label things which are true in the traditional sense. If I see a yellow car, it is a fact that the yellow car exists. I'm not going to analyze it absolutely and say,.. well,.. My senses are imperfect and it might not really be a yellow car. That will lead to insanity and probably end up making me travel around wikipedia arguing young earth ideas. My main concern was with scorpionmans statement that "Science has never proven anything to be fact!". No other method for predicting future events has proven to be as accurate as the scientific method. I never said it is perfect, but it is the best method we have for understanding truth within the limits of human understanding.-- 146.244.137.178 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I know of no Mormon group that would clam to be henotheistic. I went a read the article on WIKI (I think it may need some editing; it claims Christians are Heno and Mormons, but does not give any reference). To rightfully be called henotheistic one must have a pantheon of gods to choose from and then one chooses to worshp a single god within the pantheon. Although LDS have speculated that there may be other gods in the universe, there is not a pantheon of gods to worship. There is one God and no other.
In my entire life I have never considered myself anything but monotheistic. For LDS, there is no choice of who to worship because there is only one God. I would ask you to study more about henotheism before leveling that claim again. Yes, I am aware of what others might claim Mormons to be, but I always like to hear it straight from the horses mouth. To find out how to build a watch, one does not go to the butcher. The butcher might have some ideas, but he does not know how to build a watch. When you want to know what a LDS believes, ask. It saves times, misinformation (generally) and communication has never harmed anyone. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I have set up my own wiki, and I have just uploaded a Public Domain version of Genesis. However the page is extremely long and needs to be split up into smaller pages. This is not something I would be able to do as I have little interest or knowledge on the subject but perhaps you might be interested in having a look at it. http://www.gmcfoley.com/wiki/index.php?title=Bible/Genesis. I also have Public Domain versions of the other books which I would be happy to upload if someone was interested in formatting them. I should also point out that my entire wiki is Public Domain also. Please let me know if you are interested. Thanks, Gerard Foley 03:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Homestarmy, would you be willing to keep an eye on "Christianity"? Several editors are trying to make the intro hedge on whether or not it's monotheism. — Aiden 06:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I've noticed that you've been active on the Userbox deletion page, either strongly FOR or AGAINST the use of the new T2 for deleting userboxes. I have noticed that most of the community is strong in their opinions on this issue; for that reason, I created my own proposal which attempts to create a middle ground for the two groups, and finally get this debate settled once and for all. I welcome your input into the proposal, as well as your (non-binding) vote on the straw poll. Thanks! // The True Sora 01:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Homes! Can you explain to me how to go about joining the project, how it works and what I would be expected to do if I signed on? -- CTSWyneken 17:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I just noticed that the unmentionable site is down. All that's there now is a directory listing. I'll take your earlier remark as a prophecy that has come to pass ;) Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 06:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Since you earlier were involved in some discussion on possibly merging this article, would you come to the Talk page and give some feedback to my suggestion that this article be redirected to Christology? -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 18:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
that edit was by accident, I got a error and nothing was changed Tjb891
When I tried to follow your link, it took me to a non-accessible site, pay site if you will. That's probably why someone removed it. It certainly would be preferrable if you had a site that was publicly accessible or retrievable from a library.
This may interest you: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity#Ray_Comfort. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 04:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
While visiting Storm Rider's talk page, I saw your note. So forgive my eavesdropping, but a recent book might be helpful to you. Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding, by BYU alumni Trent Stephens and Jeffrey Meldrum, with Forrest Peterson. A review of the book by Melvin N. Westwood summarized the findings as follows:
Hope that helps a little, but I suspect the "average" Mormon would tell you that he/she does not believe in evolution. Please note I'm not average in that respect. The Church, however, still affirms the 1909 statement on the subject which did not reject evolution. Best wishes. WBardwin 20:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the trouble to review the above for "Good article" candidacy (which, incidentally, I neither solicited nor desired). I have posted replies to your queries on the relevant talk page, and copy them here in case you have not added it to your watch list. Mikedash 14:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
NPOV?
The article is, necessarily, based on the information available. I put in as much balance as I could; Roose is described as reckless, for instance, and there's a section on his bad temper. Thre simply aren't that many more criticisms on record, certainly not without going back and doing a match-by-match study of his playing career. There was just a lot more hero worship in those days, I suppose.
As to the specific criticisms, "Roose was renowned as one of the best players in his position in the Edwardian period" is simply true, and note that it is not given as my opinion - "Was one of the best players" - but as reported fact: "Was renowned as...". This usage is justified in the text - cf. his selection to a "World XI". Would it really be POV to apply such judgements to Banks or Yashin, say? "Roose was well qualified to play in goal" is similarly justified, in terms of his height and weight, and the reasons for this, given the footballing style of the period, are explained.
Eccentricity: it's a contentious topic, of course - one man's eccentric is another's beacon of sanity - but, again, I think it is beyond question that Roose was regarded as eccentric, and probably played up to the image. I refer you to the following citations (full bibliographical information for the books can be found in the references to the article):
Finally, discussion of the number of clean sheets kept by the player - "A remarkable record not least because his team flirted dangerously with relegation in 1901, 1902 and 1904" - does, I concede, require some statistical justification, but I'm happy to provide it; if we look at, say, the record of Portsmouth, the team finishing fourth from bottom of the Premiership this season, one above the relegation places, we see that the team kept only 5 clean sheets in its 38 games, or 13.1%, compared to Roose's record of 27.8% clean sheets at Stoke ( http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/teams/Portsmouth.html). Hope this helps deal with your questions.
at the top of your edit will move your text below any graphic.
Herostratus
17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I nominated Pope Pius XII to be a Featured Article. As you promoted this article to Good Article status some time ago, I thought that you might have some perspective on how the article stacks up against the featured article criteria. You are the only person I know of currently who is (somewhat) familiar with the article without having invested so much time in it as to be biased. I would appreciate your comments at the nomination page linked above, whether or not you choose to join me in supporting the article. savidan (talk) (e@) 22:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I see that you've made several comments at the Talk:25 December page, and I was hoping that you could please add your vote to the straw poll, as there appear to be two users that are bent on not having Jesus mentioned in the article. — ` CRAZY` (IN)` SANE` 20:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Which verses would you sort of like to know? Dan Watts 01:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
There are multiple sources referenced, both for the history of the domesticated banana, and for the existence of multiple banana species (most of which aren't really very palatable), in the article on bananas.
Domesticated bananas are to wild bananas as corn-on-the-cob is to teosinte - and you might not be aware of this, but the domesticated banana has been bred such that it's incapable of reproducing without human intervention. Wild bananas, conversely, do just fine. DS 17:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I left a note on the Peace Dollar talk page, regarding your comments on its Good Article nomination. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any other questions or concerns. Thanks! -- cholmes75 ( chit chat) 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
"I find it hard to believe that the publishers would let his book slide by mis-spelled"
Thank you for the message. Perhaps I should have phrased my edit summary better. As the article states, "The long-term goal of Jews for Jesus is one of conversion of all Jews to accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah — a position which is usually characterised as Christianity." Islam is completely out of picture here. ← Humus sapiens ну? 07:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, for correcting me. Str1977 (smile back) 17:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed your interest in this, and I REALLY want this thing to be featured, and I think we should be able to work together on this, especially because the people at WP:FF are working on other projects, meaning without you, I'm really on my own on this, and I can't do this alone, as you know. I'm adding some sections so that they match up with FFVIII and FFX, two of the best FF articles. I need your help with rewriting prose, adding material, removing redundancy, and making sure everything, even storyline material, is properly referenced. We need to recruit some more people. Crazyswordsman 22:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Could you please be a tad more informative on the H-K-T talk page? I mean, what's specifically wrong with that article, or what is it that is not covered sufficiently? AFAICT all notable facts are already mentioned and I'm not really sure what is it that you mean. Thanks in advance. Halibutt
Replied there.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The Restorationism article is in terrible shape. Amongst its many problems is a complete lack of citations. Do you have any online resources that you feel might help in a cleanup of that article? Everything from style and form to grammar needs attention; I'm willing to do a chunk of the work in cleanup, but I don't have the source background to do it right. Anything you can direct me towards would be appreciated. Thanks, - Kevin/Last1in 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I can't begin to tell you how many times I've confused your username with HOTR's. Sorry for any frustration my boobheadedness may have caused. FeloniousMonk 18:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but when I checked this article, all I saw was Highway failing it, and there's no entry on the disputes page, why was this article relisted? Homestarmy 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
you look like the same guy ... -- BenMcLean 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it is good to include the JW information on that page, although I think that it would be better to put it in a separate section for JWs, perhaps with a note that they are not considered to be Christians by mainstream Christian denominations. BenC7 04:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I intend to ignore it, even though Mantanmoreland has been more than a bit troublesome to me. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a discussion page for this kind of article nom? Voting? A way to contest a fail if it is done by a significant contributor? Look at the failed FA nom if you wonder why I ask.
Bob-- CTSWyneken (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Can we add {{ sprotect}} to articles that are being heavily vandalised by anon vandals? Do we just put it at the top of the page somewhere? ross nixon 02:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the objections to this link. I have nothing to do whatsoever with PBS. It is a free website, it discusses a frontline series done over christianity (4 tapes long) in 1998. Please relook.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/
if you click on one of the faces it will display several links
I have tried to find a more worthy "entry" page but that is the only one they provide. I believe the navigator is supposed to click on the faces.
If you are to click on some of the links..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/
For example, you have access to all of the articles explaining his life, existance, etc.
I have not encountered a single pay advertisement. The website is for those to share the information from the broadcast in 1998. PBS is free anyway and it's directly from their website.
I have used their links to cite sources throughout facebook. Most notably http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus#Scholarly_Consensus , the Bishop Irenaeus quote is invaluable, only found from the PBS material.
It is not transcripts. It contains scholary articles written from some of the most informed in the field, it's a WEALTH of information. Reading the articles will unravel many things unknown.
You bring up some good issues and I am concerned with the same things as well. I uncovered the link while doing my own research on Christianity and it provided numerous lectures by scholars about Christian history.
This for instance includes a lecture given by Michael White at Harvard on the controversies surrounding Jesus' tomb. Paul, the earliest writer in the New Testament speaks of no tomb, Jesus simply ascends. The gospel of Mark has Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Salome approach Jesus' tomb to annoint his body, however on they way there they ponder how to roll back the rock covering its enterance. They eventually find out its rolled back already, they enter and a "man" dressed in white tells them Jesus has ascended into heaven.
Matthew however has just Mary and Mary Magdalene visit the tomb, not to annoint the body, because he is the first to insert guards there. This changes the scenario set by the earliest gospel in Mark, and then for Matthew an "angel" comes by and strikes the guards dead, he tells both Marys that jesus has ascended and then they walk into the tomb to check it out for themselves.
Such scholarly incite is imperative for people interested in christianity. I acknowledge that the link you showed me can be seen as "shady" but its goal is simply to give the individual an oppurtunity to buy the old documentary. The navigation is not great, however the website intends for the user to browse through the articles.
Also quite a humorous thing is Bishop Iraenous of 170AD France, he led the movement to classify all Gospels but Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as Gnostic because there were "four corners to the universe and four principle winds". He also thought they were written by Jesus' original disciples and this is not the case as well.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/emergence.html
I would very much like if you could help me find a better "entry" page. I do not want others to be turned off by their offer to sell their documentary however I know of no other link that has access to all of their educational articles.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/
If you go to the above and click 'an overview of the four gospels', they might be able to inform you of certain things.
The first gospel, the gospel of Mark, was revolutionary. I was just readng from this earlier and I'll pull the quote,
Whether as a reponse to the Jewish War (66-70) or to the deaths of the earliest followrs of Jesus, or to the need of a definitive version of Jesus' life, or to objectionable theological trends, the author of the Gospel of Mark recast traditional materials into a dramatic narrative climaxing in Jesus' death. It is not clear precisely what kind of book the author set out to compose, insofar as no document written prior to Mark exactly conforms with its literary properties. Its themes of travel, conflict with supernatural foes, suffering, and secrecy resonate with Homer's Odyssey and Greek romantic novels. Its focus on the character, identity, and death of a single individual reminds one of ancient biographies. It's dialogues, tragic outcome, and puculiar ending call to mind Greek drama. Some have suggested that the author created a new, mixed genre for narrating the life and death of Jesus.
Dennis R MacDonald, Early Christian Literature (Found in Oxford study bible referring the Gospel of Mark )
It seems he was simply taking the historical life of Jesus and making it a theological story, one where he played the role of a Messiah. His gospel would be the gospel that Matthew (the most frequently referenced gospel in antiquity) and luke pulled from. They also used some source Q that is now lost. Some speculate its the Gospel of Thomas.
The "it seems that the Gospels are increadibly embellished myths" is simply an inference to literary parallels. The gospels are their own literary work, they pull from other works. The book of Revelation even calls Hell 'Hades', a reference to the ancient greek Olympian God (named Hades).
It may seem 'mean' I suppose, but most facts that infer new viewpoints must discredit others. The information is still objective.
I very much love biblical scholarship because it requires people to suspend their own prophetic views. I had one guy claim David was 'right' to kill Uria and David committing adultery was perfectly fine, the guy was jewish, if he actually thought it was 'right' then he would be disagreeing with his own version of scripture and David's everlasting monarchy wouldn't have fallen.
I think it's imperative to leave links like the one posted. It is "multiple views" but they are only multiple because they conflict with scripture, the origins of which are worthy of their own study. 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know that Slim Virgin, who is actively involved in the editing of Martin Luther has failed the nom without comment on the talk page, removing all trace of the nom. This is something like I expected would happen. Thanks for trying, anyway. -- CTSWyneken (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Would you review this one? I need to recuse, since I waded in to help convert old reference style to the new, inline variety. Thanks! Bob-- CTSWyneken (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the nomination for GA on the above page, you said: "I've put the GA nomination on hold, because the introduction is one sentence long, I really don't think that summarizes an article of this size very well as per WP:LEAD, it will need to be expanded out to summarize the article, preferably in one or two paragraphs detailing the most important stuff or something." I ask that you re-evaluate the lead, as I have changed it in heed with your suggestions. Thanks, Daniel. Bryant 04:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey there. I've added to the short LEAD for the Diego Maradona article and have broken up the previously long LEAD for the Rallying article. Do you fancy taking another look? Regards SeanMack 04:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The Martin Luther article has been nominated for Good Article status. A reviewer dropped by and said that everything but the Luther and Antisemitism section qualified. Unser Mantanmoreland said, in effect, the section was just fine but the restof the article was hagiographic. While I intend to leave the issue well enough alone, I thought you might be interested in helping see if he will offer us some suggestions. (or offering your own, for that matter).-- CTSWyneken (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you direct me to the page where it was decided that Capitalism no longer met the criteria for a Good Article...I see the template was change by you on the article talk page here. Thanks!-- MONGO 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay thanks for that.-- MONGO 17:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to be away for a little bit so I thought sprotecting an article under anon attack is justified. I clicked Save before I wrote that I'm reverting to the last ver. by Ian Pitchford. I'd appreciate if more people watch and revert POV & OR edits. Thanks. ← Humus sapiens ну? 22:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
How have you been? Haven't seen you around CKB (wikia) lately, and ChristWiki (relately) seems dead. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
There were 16 CKB users active in August. ChristWiki is a ghosttown. I noticed that CarmPedia is down. This is evangelism? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 23:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've posted a reply to your note on my user page: User_talk:StephenFerg I hope that is the proper technique for replying. If not, let me know. I'm a relative Wikipedia newbie, and still learning. (August 29, 2006 10pm EST) -- Steve Ferg
Would you take a look at the current discussion and advise if you think I'm crazy? -- CTSWyneken (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
A couple of editors are of the opinion that Abraham was a Polygamist, so they have added Cat:Polygamist. See talk:Abraham I have doubts as to the validity of this classification. I think this was more a 'rent-a-womb' scheme than a marriage to Hagar. Do you have an opinion? I wonder if this is a LDS / Mormon attempt to add respectability to Polygamy? rossnixon 05:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
{{Portal:Bible/Featured chapter/Template}}. Thought you might be interested.
hey homestarm --
after being blocked and seeing 'paradoxtom' be blocked and get very upset about it, i decided to put together some suggestions for changing 3RR. come take a look at my policy proposal changes at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Proposed_policy_changes
i think they could prevent a good portion of the conflict that comes with 3RR. comments are welcome.
Justforasecond 16:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The Working Man's Barnstar | ||
Awarded to Homestarmy for tireless work on Good Article Candidates and Good Article Review. Your dedication and contributions help to make Wikipedia a better project. Thank you. |
As I was looking at the Good Article Review archives and other Good Articles, I kept seeing your name everywhere :P I figure such work deserves recognition and I wanted to thank you for all that you've done. Agne 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
They've all been fixed. The NHC recently changed the URLs to all their archived stuff for this year. BTW, looking at your userpage, I think NationStates players need our own userbox! Heh. – Ch acor 13:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I'm am not 100% sure what is being asked though. Do you want me to just list the criteria and put passes next to each one? I do try to check everything and my standards are close to those that have been discussed on Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates recently. I will be happy to comply with any new standards the project sets but there isn't much to say when it meets everything, unlike one that fails where I do always leave specific criticism. I see that the instructions now ask one to leave a comment when passing an article. That must have been added since the last time I looked at them closely. Eluchil404 15:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
By what process did inline citations become a requirement for GA? I've seen (and participated in) discussions on the criteria page and the candidates page, but there's no consensus as far as I can see. I certainly don't think you should be delisting articles based on that, when the change is less than a day old. Kafziel 17:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
You realize how much your statement would annoy the IDers? JoshuaZ 01:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
To clarify: the reason it would annoy IDers is that your statement depicted ID and creationism as interchangeable. "the same attitude all of the creationism-related articles have, `There is no dispute about evolution, and ID'ers are basically lying about this." It was, in any event, meant as a possibly humorous sidenote. JoshuaZ 05:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion going on in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow-white Miriam about whether to delete this article. You might want to present your views there. Best, -- Shirahadasha 19:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking that out. I never noticed it was in there but it is almost certainly false. Some really extreme evangelicals in fact accuse Kennedy of being too eucemincal with the Roman Catholics. See for example [2]. JoshuaZ 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I have read the article 2 times. Then afterward, went out to read both of what sounded like reliable sources (and were) and found that all the material that was found in the article pertained to both references in question. From this, I added the inline citation so you wouldn't have to re-review the article pertaining to the 2b criteria and so I assessed the article as having enough of everything. If, on the contrary, you still think some unsourced statements should be cited, feel free to discuss them, I will father the article for that matter only.
We can now use this article to show people that even if there aren't many references and really very few inline citations the article can still be called a good article. Lincher 01:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems to of removed a Typhoon and Black Marsh, and I think those are both still GA's :/. Homestarmy 00:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope you now see the problem I was trying to illustrate. User:Agne27 was a dream compared to what's going on now. We have a user going on the rampage basically telling us that every article I contribute to is "noncompliant". This citation madness needs to stop! Thanks for your help in pointing out that delisting guidelines say a review needs to be done. -- ScienceApologist 04:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. My point was that in all due respect I thought Film maker was wrong to delete my nomination, my GA Nominee tag, and to put up a Former GA Canidate in its place vs. simply leaving a "disagree" apply on the nomination page. Yet, if all of those things are an automatic thing when one posts a "disagree" then I understand. Yet, I understand your point too I think that one can post replys quickly. If I'm confusing what you said I'm sorry. Thanks again. DavidWJohnson 22:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your GA failings. Altough it would be nice if you wouldn't change the top counter and let the bot do it as it creates an extra edit, messes the count, and because your the only one who really does it. I mean no harm and if you like doing it, you can continue. :) Lincher 00:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
That was an unusal scripture to use (John 10:34-36, I think that is what you meant). Christ was quoting Psalms 82:1, 6, which reads:
This is beside the point, but a LDS would use this scripture in other ways. For example, Psalms states that God is standing in the congregation of the mighty, or among the gods. Who are gods? Verse 6, the one Jesus was quoting, states plainly that at least some of the ones he was talking about were children of the most High, which are called gods.
It is important to recognize that there is one God or Godhead and that gods are not the equivalent of God. My purpose in pointing this out is that I thought it was an interesting choice of scripture. These are some of the basic scriptures that we use to demonstrate that we are children of the most High and can become gods. Personally, I still don't care for the statement, "we can become gods". It always seems to stick in my craw when I say it. It is beyond my comprehension that God would extend this gift to me. Jesus is recorded in the Book of Revelations 3:21 as saying, "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." What a glorious promise and yet it is also beyond my understanding. Mormons don't create their theology, but everything we believe, or the vast majority, is found within the Bible. The Book of Mormon teaches very few unique teachings; it mainly is a second witness to jew and gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.
I appreciate your participation on WIKI. I can be a bit abrasive and hope that we can continue to improve WIKI articles that are centered on Jesus Christ. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Homestar, I must say that I haven't a clue about the cartoon you referenced or the character cited. I must be showing my age. A few points: I would not get too hung up on punctuation; the punctuation you are referring did not exist in the known texts. They are a fabrication of different translations; thus the NIV's use of quotes where the KJV does not have any. Second, in reality LDS don't dwell too much on this concept of godhood. It is sensationalized by those critical of the church; however, we see the purpose of creation fulfilled in the teaching of eternal progression. I think you find many verses in the scriptures that discusses plurality of gods; just do a search. There is one Godhead and one Heavenly Father. He will always be our Heavenly Father throughout eternity. Getting back to my analogy, a child is never the equal of his parents; it is even more so with God. This term "god" has no relationship to God. Jesus said we would be co-inheritors with Him. He is the one who said we were gods and children of God. What does co-inheritor mean to you? I have a difficult time not taking Him at His word. The second to last sentence you thought was creepy was "We will become co-inheritors with Jesus Christ." Do you want a reference for it in the Bible? Storm Rider (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a message for the one who deleted the link African Holocaust. I dont care if you think it is spamming the facts are this site deals with slavery. If Steven Hawkins contributed to "Black Holes" would you delete it. You can only delete a link for a valid reason. the site deals with slavery in debt, hence it is relevant. the film on slavery is a film on slavery. all of these things are facts, so there is zero reason to remove the link. Films on slavery--then it is 500 Years Later isnt it a film on Slavery? so leave it alone---- Halaqah 15:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Halaqah 15:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to remove your message from my talk page, as I assume it wasn't meant for me and is likely to confuse things in this already confused conversation. Cheers Yomangani talk 15:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know, the red link you fixed over at Jesus was due to this recent AfD. Peyna 01:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - it's good to know he's ok. Sophia 17:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I would have reverted that too if I'd seen it...the note about "Birth of Jesus" that you reinstated is there to try to slow down the dimwits who insist on adding an entry for year 0 (no such year) or year 1 or whatever for Jesus. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
You are right that did not have any thing to do with creationism at all.-- Sea dog .M.S 22:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
About the Werdnabot thing, from what I know it can be used on any talk page. The Esperanza page seems to make good use of it and besides it will hopefully make archiving jobs a little bit easier. In fact if it works well we should try it on other talk pages. However I don't really know much else about it, if you have any other questions you might want to ask Werdna about it. Tarret 01:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello - I noticed you downgraded the article fitness landscape from "good article". You did not leave any reason why or a list of what you considered must be done to restore it to the status of a good article. Could you do this, because I would like to improve the article if possible. Thanks - PAR 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)