Homestarmy, I noticed that you are having a long-running discussion with some other users on the John Hagee talk page. What sort of things were going on to spark such a discussion and what do you personally believe about Hagee's beliefs, particularly about the so-called "end times?"
I am a Christian. However, I do believe that Hagee is a threat to peace IF people take what he says to heart. Anyone who misinterprets the Bible and says "the United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West... a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation [...] and [the] Second Coming of Christ" is dangerous. In a way, Hagee is no different from Iran's president Mahmound Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad has made comments about the emergence of the "mahdi," who will appear after global chaos erupts. Hagee is encouraging war with Iran to hasten the return of Christ.
Jesus Christ will appear for the Second Coming in his own time. It is not up to us to hasten His coming. We have been living in the "last days" for the past 2,000 years (Hebrews 1:2, James 5:3). The "antichrist" doesn't have to be a single political dictator (1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3, 2 John 1:7). The word "antichrist" never appears in Revelation, only in those 4 passages in 1 and 2 John.
Dispensational and premillennial theories are unscriptural and dangerous for people to believe. I used to believe them myself and they still scare me somewhat, but now I know better ever since the recent Israel/Hezbollah war led me to rethink my beliefs. Clinevol98 20:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no literal millennium during which Jesus will rule over the Earth. That time period is purely symbolic. The millennium is only mentioned once in the Bible, in Revelation 20. Keep in mind that Revelation is a HIGHLY symbolic book and most of it is not meant to be taken literally. Think about it: if there is a literal minimum, that is a major event. So why would it not be mentioned by Jesus, Paul, or any of the apostles? The millennium is taking place right now as Satan is restrained. At the end of the millennium, Satan will be loosed from his "abyss" for the Battle of Armageddon, which itself doesn't have to be a literal battle.
Current events involving Israel and the Arab world have nothing to do with Bible prophecy. God does not work through Israel anymore and Israel is not "God's timepiece" as so many dispensationals like to say. We are all "baptized into one body" (1 Corinthians 12-13) and the plan for salvation is the same for Gentiles and Jews. Israel in 1948 was restored by an act of man, not an act of God. Geopolitical Israel has nothing to do with Bible prophecy. All of the Old Testament passages about blessing Israel applied to the Old Covenant and how God worked through Israel during the Old Testament. A New Covenant through Jesus Christ is now in place, and God's plan for Israel is the same as it is for us; we are saved through Jesus.
Matthew 24 is talking about events surrounding the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Jesus Himself said "this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened." Taking that for what it says, it sounds like Jesus was talking about events that will surround the destruction of the temple by the Romans (the "abomination of desolation" that Jesus and Daniel talk about). This verse has been misapplied to mean that the generation that sees the rebirth of Israel will be the generation that sees the rapture and that the "Antichrist" will rule from a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.
Ezekiel 38-39 is not a "Russian/Iranian" invasion of Israel. Meshech and Tubal are not Moscow and Tobolsk. Meshech and Tubal were tribes that traded with the Israelites in that day (Ezekiel 27:13). Besides, the word "Moscow" wasn't even used until 1147 ( Moscow). The word "Moscow" comes from an extinct Finnic language. So how can anyone make an idenfitication from the ancient Hebrew to a word that was first used 1700 years later? Notice in Ezekiel 38 it talks about this army fighting with bucklers, shields, and swords. No modern-day armies use these kinds of weapons. This may seem obvious, but it is worth noting because the dispensationalists pride themselves on taking Scripture literally. However, this is one of those passages they choose to take figuratively because it fits in with their theories. Why would Israel need to use the weapons of the invaders for fuel for 7 years (Eze 39:9-10)? Israel has nuclear power. Also notice that this invasion makes no references that it will occur just before or in tandem with the Second Coming. The Israelites were in captivity in Babylon at this time, so what good would a story of a 21st Century do for them? This is a passage that was intended to comfort and encourage the Israelites at that time who were in bondage in Babylon. It's important to put the entire book in context. Notice how before the prophecy against Gog and Magog is talked about there are prophecies against Ammon (Ezekiel 25), Moab (25), Edom (25), Philistia (25), Tyre (26), the King of Tyre (28), Egypt (29), Pharaoh (32), and Edom once again (35). Clearly, those passages applied to that day in age. So why should Ezekiel 38-39 fast forward 25 centuries later?
So what do these chapters mean? The best explanation is that this is talking about the invasion of Israel by Antiochus Ephipanes in 168 BC. Notice he says "latter days;" and this invasion occurred 4 centuries after it was first written. This "Russian invasion" is nothing more than a theory. Sure, it might happen someday (surely not anytime soon), but it won't be because it was Biblical prophesied. Besides, how likely is it that Russia will invade Israel anytime soon anyway? Israel and Iran might fight soon, but Russia fighting alongside Iran? No way.
I could go on and on and on talking about how Daniel 9:27 is not the signing of a "7-year peace treaty" by the "Antichrist" with Israel and Arab states. I've already talked about how the idea of a singular "Antichrist" who rules the world is not found anywhere in Scripture.
What I'm saying about Hagee is that encouraging a pre-emptive strike on Iran because it would fit in with suspect Bible prophecy is scary and dangerous. He makes irresponsible comments and writes irresponsible books like "Jerusalem Countdown." The first error in that book is right on the front cover: "Iran's nuclear arsenal is ready." By the best estimates, Iran won't have the capacity to make nuclear weapons until 2009-2015.
And yes, there are grounds for comparison between Hagee and Iran's president on one point; they are looking forward to global chaos so their savior can return. Jesus will come in God's time. It is not up to us to hasten it. We are to live our lives for Jesus, evangelize and disciple the lost, and everything else will take care of itself. Hagee is out to sell books and videos by his "fire and brimstone" sermons. Hagee should be more concerned on saving people in Iran rather that dropping bombs on them to fulfill prophecy.
Now don't get me wrong, I support Israel. But not because I'm commanded to in the Bible. I support them for political, not theological, reasons. They are the lone democracy in the Middle East and we should stand behind them.
Also keep in mind that the belief in the Mahdi is a radical Shia Muslim belief. Shia Muslims are the majority in Iran, but the overwhelming majority of Muslims (85%) are Sunni. While it is scary that Iran's president sees himself to bring about the Mahdi, it would likely spark a fierce response from Sunnis who disagree with him. Ahmadinejad may be crazy, but he's also smart. Can you imagine the world's response if he attacked Israel? The world would come to Israel's defense and Iran would be nailed hard at this juncture, not Iran's.
Personally, I don't think Jesus will return until the Great Commission is fulfilled. This means not just evangelism but discipleship in ALL nations. Just imagine how long it will take before this is done on a widespread scale in the Middle East and places like China. This will take a long time and is not close to happening. The millennium stands for a very long time, which is what Jesus told us to expect (Matthew 25:19). Of course Jesus could return at any time and we should be ready for it, but I can't say that I'm really expecting Him to.
If you'd like to hear more I'd be glad to keep talking with you. What do you believe? I used to believe in the premillennial theories until I began looking into them during and after the recent Israel/Hezbollah conflict. I'm still frightened by what some people believe the Bible says about current events, but I'm learning to put those theories away because, after all, I think they are just theories. Clinevol98 22:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I really like Ecclesiastes 11:9-10. I don't quite know what you mean by that statement about "love of life".
I agree with you about Hagee's form of evangelism; it's not a direct form of evangelism at all. Jesus, Paul, and the apostles didn't evangelize people based on the fact that global chaos was about to erupt and there wasn't much time. The based their evangelism based on the truth that Jesus is the Son of God and he bore the sins of the world upon Himself so that we might have eternal life with Him. They didn't go around scaring people, which I believe is what Hagee does to a certain extent whether he means to do it or not. He shouldn't be scaring people into getting them to getting saved. He also shouldn't decree that we don't have much time before the nukes start flying and the rapture, because he doesn't know that. Only God does. He should show people the truth straight from the Bible on how to be saved rather than getting people to buy into his suspect prophecies.
Personally, there is no way Iran attacks Israel, at least in the next few years. As I said before, the man is crazy but not stupid. Besides, he doesn't even have a nuke yet. Also remember that he is in a very small minority in the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and other moderate Arab nations don't like to see a strong and especially nuclear Iran. It's not in our or their best interests.
I believe the reason Jesus' Second Coming is talked about in an imminent sense is because Jesus wants us to be ready. He could come at any instant. For example, you don't snooze off in class during a lecture because what if the teacher decides to have a pop quiz? We need to be prepared for it to happen at any instant, but the coming itself will come like a thief in the night. However, I do believe that the millennium represents a very long period of time. As you say, this fact doesn't discredit postmillennialism at all.
As for the rebuilding of the temple being talked about in Revelation, I'm not very familiar with that. I'll look into it. On raptureready.com, I was talking about looking at the message board and reading the statements that people make there. What did they say about hellfire preaching that you disagreed with? They frightened me so much that I have blocked that website from my computer! Clinevol98 05:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't really think we are commanded by Jesus to hate our lives by John 12:25. God created us in His image. Does He really want us walking around beating ourselves up and hating the life that God has given us to serve Him? I think what Jesus is talking about there when he says "love his life" is excessive self-pride and self-gratification and not having God first in your life. Jesus also says other things that seem bizarre at first reading, such as Luke 14:26. I mean, do you "hate" your life? Clinevol98 19:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's simplfying a situation to make this scenario "Arabs vs. the West." Some fellow Muslims have a hatred for fellow Muslims. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat to regional peace and security and Iran's Arab neighbors know that.
What surprises me is the fact that a lot of people are looking to a "Russian/Iranian" joint attack on Israel soon. Sure, Iran hates Israel, but Russia? They have helped Iran in the construction of one of their nuclear reactors, but an all-out invasion of Israel very soon? How likely do you see that? Clinevol98 21:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Middle Eastern nations aren't crying out against Iran because they are afraid to. Believe me, they don't want Iran to get a nuke. Israel also has nuclear weapons and complex missile defense systems that can shoot down most missiles. Germany also recently covered most of the costs on 2 nuclear submarines for Israel that nuclear missiles can be launched from. Having said that, I'm not a "nuclear war" doomsdayer. Iran knows they would be annhilated if they attack Israel.
Remember, the RFID stories you have heard are very isolated cases. It's not like everyone has a microchip in their head. I guess the base technology is there, but definitely not on a widespread scale. Besides, Revelation 13 isn't talking about a one-world ruler tracking people anyway. It's a parody of marks the Roman Empire put on people and isn't a literal mark. There is hardly anything meant to be taken literally in Revelation. Clinevol98 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
On the issue of alliances, I think the Iranians are very distrustful of the Russians and will never form any meaningful alliance with them that could threaten US interests. Larger, multilateral alliances may take shape (keep an eye out for the Shanghai Cooperation Org, which has made overtures to Iran in the past to join) but their remains a large amount of enmity b/t Russia and Iran that is part cultural, part historical.
That said, I'm no way insinuating Russia will come around and support a UN resolution that targets Iran's oil sector. Nobody I talk to says that's in the offing."
Dear Homes:
A discussion is underway between me and a newcomer who is undoing a lot of my work on the notes in this article. Would you weigh in? Thanks! -- CTSWyneken (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you please talk to him? He's much more likely to listen to you than to me and he seems to be self-destructing. JoshuaZ 06:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You the only guy on the GA review page? You seem to be fighting a lonely battle, my hats off to you (even though I don't own one). LuciferMorgan 21:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hiya,
You seem to have been around the GA process for a while. I wanna ask a question, but am afraid of starting a foodfight if I ask on the project talk page.
I'm just looking at the most recent GA, New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway. The only reason I'm discussing that article is simply because, at the time I had these questions, that was the most recent GA.
If I were reviewing it, I would look down at the notes section, see a total of 7 notes, and think "'Next!'". No way would I accept that level of skimpiness with respect to verifiability. I get the coypvio shudders when I see only 7 notes in the middle of a large number of factual assertions. I would not even need to read the rest of the article to know it was a GA reject.[However, I would read the rest of the article, in order to offer constructive criticism.] I mean, look at this:
The New Jersey Western was the most profitable of the roads and, led by Cornelius Wortendyke, began operating at Hawthorne in 1869. Later that year, Wortendyke signed an agreement with Dewitt Littlejohn to give the NY&OM trackage rights over the NJW to reach New York City. This agreement was pivotal, as the two roads would soon see themselves merged in 1870 to form the New Jersey Midland Railway (NJM)
In my mind, this article needs should contain far more {{fact}} tags than it has photos.
I would reject it despite its nice maps and photos. Nice maps and photos are the least of my concerns (tho having at least 1 is kinda required, if I read WP:WIAGA correctly.. but I'm surprised WP:WIAGA makes no mention of infoboxes!).
Would I be in the wrong?
Thanks -- Ling.Nut 00:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
HI again,
Anyone can list anything! There are no checks at all, unless someone just happens to get around to it. That's true for inexperienced reviewers; it's true for counterfeits ("bogies").
Am I out of line for wondering about this?
I'm walking in and commenting on a process that has existed for a while, I know...
[And thanks for the answer to q#1]. -- Ling.Nut 02:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I was wondering how folks who know me would respond to that post. Basically, if I want to explain POV to a home-schooled "Jesus Freak," I want to put it in terms that he will understand. Another editor posted a response that amounted to a challenge, but why be confrontational? I want to make NPOV make sense even to someone who thinks that their beliefs are the truth, not POV. I wrote it with irony, but not sarcasm. I was really trying to get to the NPOV idea from JesusFreak's viewpoint. Jonathan Tweet 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I've responded on the talk page. Thanks! -- Spangineer ws (háblame) 16:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Homestarmy,
Is that "home state army?"
Anyhow, if you have a moment, I'd appreciate it if you could look at Jogaila and especially at the discussion of its GA at the bottom of its talk page. It's a bit of an unusual case, in that although there is ongoing bickering over spelling issues, the bickering seems not to affect the article...
Thanks, -- Ling.Nut 22:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it common practice to delist an article by review without notification? Most users don't keep Wikipedia:Good articles/Review on their watchlist, after all. Just wondering. – Clockwork Soul 14:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm very sorry if I was a short with you: I unfairly took my bad week out on you. It won't happen again. – Clockwork Soul 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me for doing a core dump... but...
I wanted to stop being a total metawikipedian around WP:GA/R, and go actually review some more articles. So I went to look.
I...it's difficult to say. I want to keep impartiality. But I am feeling cranky.
I have spent.. I haven't looked at the history.. but hours upon hours upon hours on the page I submitted (which first got me interested in this process). In my admittedly biased opinion, it is a very important topic.
The article still has warts; it might not make GA. I wouldn't be surprised or hurt at all if it didn't. In fact, I would be faintly surprised if it passed.
Among the nominees I looked at today: one of the articles took less than 2 days to write, start to finish. And I think it might just be GA.
Another.. the topic is...[null set]. And I think it might be GA.
Yet I know... I know, if I ever even mention the N-word (that would be "notability".. stop letting your imagination fill in the blanks) I will instantly become a hated heathen, an Outcast Unclean. I have been there before!
Around GA/R, what is the status of the N-word-that-may-not-be-spoken?
I'm sure you've read this: User:Worldtraveller.
Later, -- Ling.Nut 04:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Homestarmy,
Yeah, I definitely hear what you're saying about the GA page, and about working on other projects. Maintaining a balanced perspective is important. :-)
I may be pretty light on contribs for a couple weeks starting now, but I plan to hang out on GA from now on.. just in moderation. :-) If you need help with any of the administrative-type tasks you mentioned, give me a holler any time (but that offer starts after mid-December or so. busy now.. sorry).
later! -- Ling.Nut 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I should point out that it does fail WP:WIAGA criteria 1c as I mentioned on the article's talk page. I know they are small problems but I should point out that when the problems are fixed the article can always be renominated at WP:GAN. Tarret 02:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Moreschi 22:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
There should indeed. Thanks for picking that up. Best, Moreschi 22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
My thought was that the sentence "You cannot choose an article if you have made significant contributions to it." is in the instructions (nr 2) :-)
Fred- Chess 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Homey,
Can I ask you to explicitly vote (or repeat your vote, if you have already voted in the long discussion) on Agrippina (opera)? It has been the subject of extended discussion, and deserves closure.
Thanks -- Ling.Nut 15:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You may also wanna see Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Candidates#lotsa_undiscussed_editing_of_the_project_page.._many_people_may_want_to_have_a_say.
I left a message on Folantin's talk page saying that he would be a more appropriate person to review this article, since the person who responded on the article's talk page seems to share his (Folantin's) views of GA.
If Folantin doesn't pick this up in two days or so, would you mind doing it? But let Folantin have the first crack; I asked him first.
Thanks -- Ling.Nut 00:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It takes a somewhat strong position. If you don't get it in a day or two (subject: "Because it gives me satisfaction to think I'm helping the encyclopedia") then drop a line on my talk page. :-)
Cheers!-- Ling.Nut 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a Request for Arbitration for the Jews for Jesus article. Please provide your inputs. ParadoxTom 03:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on Requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.
For the Arbitration Committee. -- Srikeit 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Concerning your summary - [6]. I obviously haven't been paying as much attention to the talk page as I should have. I had no idea that the discussion had gotten that bad at times. JoshuaZ 05:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Everywhere I go, I am reminded of my lower station in life. I must admit, it is a little tiring: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Tamil people in FAR.
The more I look at the user's edits the more your analysis seems to be accurate. I would suggest making a note of it on the ANI discussion about the user. In any event, he is so close to getting an indef block it might not matter anyways. JoshuaZ 20:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Homestarmy,
Two or three discussions are just kinda hanging there, seemingly unresolved. I was gonna archive them but am not sure. In this case, should I archive them as No Consensus?-- Ling.Nut 15:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but this is going to be long...I am appealing to you because you seem to be one of the more level headed persons involved on the Jews for Jesus article. Please understand that it was not an intent to ram down a certain POV that brought me there. It was this sentence in the RfAr by Inigmatus: "I am one of many fustrated editors with JfJ. Even though I know the page needs help, I think if we had more input from those who do not hold to Judaism, or Messianic Judaism, or even Christianity, that we would make some true NPOV progress."
Although, I self identify as Christian, for about 10 years I was agnostic, and still remain agnostic on certain Christian religious doctrines. Therefore, I believed I could give an objective review of this article and the apparent dispute. I could not. Because of the intransigence of certain editors, the article as currently written is a joke. What editors at that article must realize is that the article isn't about Chrisitanity, Judaism, Messianic Judaism, it's about Jews for Jesus. The debate about that sentence is not necessary if the focus on the article is on the organization. Nor is classifying it Christian or Jewish or Apostate or whatever. However, if even minor edits will be scrutinized and reverted without discussion, no consensus will ever be reached.
Which brings me to this. My objection with Pastor Leigh, is not because I believe JfJ is Christian or Jewish. Personally I don't care what they are or are perceived to be. It is really about undue weight. Pastor Leigh may be a Pastor with a 100 or so followers, his opinion really shouldn't be used to denote JfJ's Christianity. Billy Graham, Pat Robertson with their millions of followers, OK, I can see that (but I'd still have reservations). The Pope, with his billion followers, well there you go, but not Pastor Leigh. I really would suggest you place that quote somewhere else and not in the introduction.
That being said, I won't make any changes at the articles anymore. Or contribute any new thoughts. I'm leaving the discussion, except to answer questions. So you needn't worry about an edit war. It's unfortunate that the the mediation never took place, and also unfortunate that I had to come across Humus Sapiens. I hope he and I never cross Wiki paths again.
Good luck. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hiya,
It might be about time to archive your talk page. ;-)
Lucifer's in a tussle, which if you wanna read, is here. I know 'cause I was watching his talk page ('cause I left him a message the other day) and someone threatened to block him.
-- Ling.Nut 01:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, i would like to see the article improve through the GA process, whether it succeeds in attaining GA or not. My simple review notes have already elicited some improvement. Could you explain what you mean by your comment "admittedly highly subjective reference standards" ? Do you mean you would like to see more sources ? One can hardly have enough sources, if that is what you mean. If that is your meaning, i would be pleased to insist on that as another essential element for promotion to GA. In any case i would like the article on hold for a week or two to give prior editors or new ones a chance to improve the article. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation, sincerely, Covalent 00:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed the article has a new category, "Christian mythology". I am curious to know your thoughts? Storm Rider (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Two sentences of WP:GAC need revision. -- Ling.Nut 13:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
If you inspect the "Railroad transport" section of GA, there's a load of articles which don't meet current GA criteria. LuciferMorgan 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you think I have been unreasonable. Or don't, if you don't want to. It is getting boring. But I.... see the other other side of the ledger as the over-reacting/unreasonable side. But whatever.
I think this arguing is just gonna continue. Nothing can stop it. Nothing except handing out free GAs, I mean. -- Ling.Nut 23:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
These and other areas are places where a scientific mechanism has yet to be successful. Attacking science in areas which are reasonably well understood and well supported with evidence is not particularly productive.
What it seems to indicate, is that creationists are not interested in:
but in trying desperately to defend biblical inerrancy. Not the best possible strategy, frankly.
This is especially true since many different sects disagree on what the bible means. To the point of killing each other.-- Filll 03:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Montanabw is the Arabian horse guy, remember? He wants to do some GA reviews to help with the backlog. If you wanna give him a teensy bit of input/feedback after he's done some things, that would be cool & thanks in advance. :-)
-- Ling.Nut 19:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The subject line says it all. :-) -- Ling.Nut 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what to do about Swedish literature. Don't wanna leave a message on several peoples' talk page.-- Ling.Nut 01:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I think "clarity is good" may be a quote from The Lathe of Heaven by Ursula K. LeGuin.
Anyhow, I appreciate you for being the anchor of the GA process these days and for some time previous. You have my very sincere gratitude and even respect.
But can you please do me a favor?
When you leave a WP:GA/R message on an article's talk page, can you use something very obvious like " Good Article status of this article being reviewed at WP:GA/R for possible delisting" as the subject header? Make it really obvious. There are two reasons: one is because it is simply fair, and the other is because it wards off complaints about following the rules. The first reason is good karma; the second is anti-headaches.
Similarly, when you vote, can you vote Keep or Delist in bold letters? :-)
Really, I wanna repeat, I feel I (or some vague someone somewhere) owes you a debt of gratitude for your work there. A million thanks, sincerely. -- Ling.Nut 14:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
There isn't one yet, but if it doesn't improve by the 22nd its going up for GA review, since its not especially broad in its coverage. It was me that passed it orignally. See the talk page, and let me know if I cna help. RHB 14:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi I noticed you left some comments at Roman-Spartan War talk page regarding the GA nomination it received. I failed this article but am receiving angry messages about this. Would you consider adding an opinion to the talk page as I wholly believe that this article is not suitable for GA yet. Hope you can help, Jhamez84 21:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Homestarmy, I noticed that you are having a long-running discussion with some other users on the John Hagee talk page. What sort of things were going on to spark such a discussion and what do you personally believe about Hagee's beliefs, particularly about the so-called "end times?"
I am a Christian. However, I do believe that Hagee is a threat to peace IF people take what he says to heart. Anyone who misinterprets the Bible and says "the United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West... a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation [...] and [the] Second Coming of Christ" is dangerous. In a way, Hagee is no different from Iran's president Mahmound Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad has made comments about the emergence of the "mahdi," who will appear after global chaos erupts. Hagee is encouraging war with Iran to hasten the return of Christ.
Jesus Christ will appear for the Second Coming in his own time. It is not up to us to hasten His coming. We have been living in the "last days" for the past 2,000 years (Hebrews 1:2, James 5:3). The "antichrist" doesn't have to be a single political dictator (1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3, 2 John 1:7). The word "antichrist" never appears in Revelation, only in those 4 passages in 1 and 2 John.
Dispensational and premillennial theories are unscriptural and dangerous for people to believe. I used to believe them myself and they still scare me somewhat, but now I know better ever since the recent Israel/Hezbollah war led me to rethink my beliefs. Clinevol98 20:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no literal millennium during which Jesus will rule over the Earth. That time period is purely symbolic. The millennium is only mentioned once in the Bible, in Revelation 20. Keep in mind that Revelation is a HIGHLY symbolic book and most of it is not meant to be taken literally. Think about it: if there is a literal minimum, that is a major event. So why would it not be mentioned by Jesus, Paul, or any of the apostles? The millennium is taking place right now as Satan is restrained. At the end of the millennium, Satan will be loosed from his "abyss" for the Battle of Armageddon, which itself doesn't have to be a literal battle.
Current events involving Israel and the Arab world have nothing to do with Bible prophecy. God does not work through Israel anymore and Israel is not "God's timepiece" as so many dispensationals like to say. We are all "baptized into one body" (1 Corinthians 12-13) and the plan for salvation is the same for Gentiles and Jews. Israel in 1948 was restored by an act of man, not an act of God. Geopolitical Israel has nothing to do with Bible prophecy. All of the Old Testament passages about blessing Israel applied to the Old Covenant and how God worked through Israel during the Old Testament. A New Covenant through Jesus Christ is now in place, and God's plan for Israel is the same as it is for us; we are saved through Jesus.
Matthew 24 is talking about events surrounding the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Jesus Himself said "this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened." Taking that for what it says, it sounds like Jesus was talking about events that will surround the destruction of the temple by the Romans (the "abomination of desolation" that Jesus and Daniel talk about). This verse has been misapplied to mean that the generation that sees the rebirth of Israel will be the generation that sees the rapture and that the "Antichrist" will rule from a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.
Ezekiel 38-39 is not a "Russian/Iranian" invasion of Israel. Meshech and Tubal are not Moscow and Tobolsk. Meshech and Tubal were tribes that traded with the Israelites in that day (Ezekiel 27:13). Besides, the word "Moscow" wasn't even used until 1147 ( Moscow). The word "Moscow" comes from an extinct Finnic language. So how can anyone make an idenfitication from the ancient Hebrew to a word that was first used 1700 years later? Notice in Ezekiel 38 it talks about this army fighting with bucklers, shields, and swords. No modern-day armies use these kinds of weapons. This may seem obvious, but it is worth noting because the dispensationalists pride themselves on taking Scripture literally. However, this is one of those passages they choose to take figuratively because it fits in with their theories. Why would Israel need to use the weapons of the invaders for fuel for 7 years (Eze 39:9-10)? Israel has nuclear power. Also notice that this invasion makes no references that it will occur just before or in tandem with the Second Coming. The Israelites were in captivity in Babylon at this time, so what good would a story of a 21st Century do for them? This is a passage that was intended to comfort and encourage the Israelites at that time who were in bondage in Babylon. It's important to put the entire book in context. Notice how before the prophecy against Gog and Magog is talked about there are prophecies against Ammon (Ezekiel 25), Moab (25), Edom (25), Philistia (25), Tyre (26), the King of Tyre (28), Egypt (29), Pharaoh (32), and Edom once again (35). Clearly, those passages applied to that day in age. So why should Ezekiel 38-39 fast forward 25 centuries later?
So what do these chapters mean? The best explanation is that this is talking about the invasion of Israel by Antiochus Ephipanes in 168 BC. Notice he says "latter days;" and this invasion occurred 4 centuries after it was first written. This "Russian invasion" is nothing more than a theory. Sure, it might happen someday (surely not anytime soon), but it won't be because it was Biblical prophesied. Besides, how likely is it that Russia will invade Israel anytime soon anyway? Israel and Iran might fight soon, but Russia fighting alongside Iran? No way.
I could go on and on and on talking about how Daniel 9:27 is not the signing of a "7-year peace treaty" by the "Antichrist" with Israel and Arab states. I've already talked about how the idea of a singular "Antichrist" who rules the world is not found anywhere in Scripture.
What I'm saying about Hagee is that encouraging a pre-emptive strike on Iran because it would fit in with suspect Bible prophecy is scary and dangerous. He makes irresponsible comments and writes irresponsible books like "Jerusalem Countdown." The first error in that book is right on the front cover: "Iran's nuclear arsenal is ready." By the best estimates, Iran won't have the capacity to make nuclear weapons until 2009-2015.
And yes, there are grounds for comparison between Hagee and Iran's president on one point; they are looking forward to global chaos so their savior can return. Jesus will come in God's time. It is not up to us to hasten it. We are to live our lives for Jesus, evangelize and disciple the lost, and everything else will take care of itself. Hagee is out to sell books and videos by his "fire and brimstone" sermons. Hagee should be more concerned on saving people in Iran rather that dropping bombs on them to fulfill prophecy.
Now don't get me wrong, I support Israel. But not because I'm commanded to in the Bible. I support them for political, not theological, reasons. They are the lone democracy in the Middle East and we should stand behind them.
Also keep in mind that the belief in the Mahdi is a radical Shia Muslim belief. Shia Muslims are the majority in Iran, but the overwhelming majority of Muslims (85%) are Sunni. While it is scary that Iran's president sees himself to bring about the Mahdi, it would likely spark a fierce response from Sunnis who disagree with him. Ahmadinejad may be crazy, but he's also smart. Can you imagine the world's response if he attacked Israel? The world would come to Israel's defense and Iran would be nailed hard at this juncture, not Iran's.
Personally, I don't think Jesus will return until the Great Commission is fulfilled. This means not just evangelism but discipleship in ALL nations. Just imagine how long it will take before this is done on a widespread scale in the Middle East and places like China. This will take a long time and is not close to happening. The millennium stands for a very long time, which is what Jesus told us to expect (Matthew 25:19). Of course Jesus could return at any time and we should be ready for it, but I can't say that I'm really expecting Him to.
If you'd like to hear more I'd be glad to keep talking with you. What do you believe? I used to believe in the premillennial theories until I began looking into them during and after the recent Israel/Hezbollah conflict. I'm still frightened by what some people believe the Bible says about current events, but I'm learning to put those theories away because, after all, I think they are just theories. Clinevol98 22:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I really like Ecclesiastes 11:9-10. I don't quite know what you mean by that statement about "love of life".
I agree with you about Hagee's form of evangelism; it's not a direct form of evangelism at all. Jesus, Paul, and the apostles didn't evangelize people based on the fact that global chaos was about to erupt and there wasn't much time. The based their evangelism based on the truth that Jesus is the Son of God and he bore the sins of the world upon Himself so that we might have eternal life with Him. They didn't go around scaring people, which I believe is what Hagee does to a certain extent whether he means to do it or not. He shouldn't be scaring people into getting them to getting saved. He also shouldn't decree that we don't have much time before the nukes start flying and the rapture, because he doesn't know that. Only God does. He should show people the truth straight from the Bible on how to be saved rather than getting people to buy into his suspect prophecies.
Personally, there is no way Iran attacks Israel, at least in the next few years. As I said before, the man is crazy but not stupid. Besides, he doesn't even have a nuke yet. Also remember that he is in a very small minority in the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and other moderate Arab nations don't like to see a strong and especially nuclear Iran. It's not in our or their best interests.
I believe the reason Jesus' Second Coming is talked about in an imminent sense is because Jesus wants us to be ready. He could come at any instant. For example, you don't snooze off in class during a lecture because what if the teacher decides to have a pop quiz? We need to be prepared for it to happen at any instant, but the coming itself will come like a thief in the night. However, I do believe that the millennium represents a very long period of time. As you say, this fact doesn't discredit postmillennialism at all.
As for the rebuilding of the temple being talked about in Revelation, I'm not very familiar with that. I'll look into it. On raptureready.com, I was talking about looking at the message board and reading the statements that people make there. What did they say about hellfire preaching that you disagreed with? They frightened me so much that I have blocked that website from my computer! Clinevol98 05:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't really think we are commanded by Jesus to hate our lives by John 12:25. God created us in His image. Does He really want us walking around beating ourselves up and hating the life that God has given us to serve Him? I think what Jesus is talking about there when he says "love his life" is excessive self-pride and self-gratification and not having God first in your life. Jesus also says other things that seem bizarre at first reading, such as Luke 14:26. I mean, do you "hate" your life? Clinevol98 19:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's simplfying a situation to make this scenario "Arabs vs. the West." Some fellow Muslims have a hatred for fellow Muslims. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat to regional peace and security and Iran's Arab neighbors know that.
What surprises me is the fact that a lot of people are looking to a "Russian/Iranian" joint attack on Israel soon. Sure, Iran hates Israel, but Russia? They have helped Iran in the construction of one of their nuclear reactors, but an all-out invasion of Israel very soon? How likely do you see that? Clinevol98 21:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Middle Eastern nations aren't crying out against Iran because they are afraid to. Believe me, they don't want Iran to get a nuke. Israel also has nuclear weapons and complex missile defense systems that can shoot down most missiles. Germany also recently covered most of the costs on 2 nuclear submarines for Israel that nuclear missiles can be launched from. Having said that, I'm not a "nuclear war" doomsdayer. Iran knows they would be annhilated if they attack Israel.
Remember, the RFID stories you have heard are very isolated cases. It's not like everyone has a microchip in their head. I guess the base technology is there, but definitely not on a widespread scale. Besides, Revelation 13 isn't talking about a one-world ruler tracking people anyway. It's a parody of marks the Roman Empire put on people and isn't a literal mark. There is hardly anything meant to be taken literally in Revelation. Clinevol98 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
On the issue of alliances, I think the Iranians are very distrustful of the Russians and will never form any meaningful alliance with them that could threaten US interests. Larger, multilateral alliances may take shape (keep an eye out for the Shanghai Cooperation Org, which has made overtures to Iran in the past to join) but their remains a large amount of enmity b/t Russia and Iran that is part cultural, part historical.
That said, I'm no way insinuating Russia will come around and support a UN resolution that targets Iran's oil sector. Nobody I talk to says that's in the offing."
Dear Homes:
A discussion is underway between me and a newcomer who is undoing a lot of my work on the notes in this article. Would you weigh in? Thanks! -- CTSWyneken (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you please talk to him? He's much more likely to listen to you than to me and he seems to be self-destructing. JoshuaZ 06:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
You the only guy on the GA review page? You seem to be fighting a lonely battle, my hats off to you (even though I don't own one). LuciferMorgan 21:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hiya,
You seem to have been around the GA process for a while. I wanna ask a question, but am afraid of starting a foodfight if I ask on the project talk page.
I'm just looking at the most recent GA, New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway. The only reason I'm discussing that article is simply because, at the time I had these questions, that was the most recent GA.
If I were reviewing it, I would look down at the notes section, see a total of 7 notes, and think "'Next!'". No way would I accept that level of skimpiness with respect to verifiability. I get the coypvio shudders when I see only 7 notes in the middle of a large number of factual assertions. I would not even need to read the rest of the article to know it was a GA reject.[However, I would read the rest of the article, in order to offer constructive criticism.] I mean, look at this:
The New Jersey Western was the most profitable of the roads and, led by Cornelius Wortendyke, began operating at Hawthorne in 1869. Later that year, Wortendyke signed an agreement with Dewitt Littlejohn to give the NY&OM trackage rights over the NJW to reach New York City. This agreement was pivotal, as the two roads would soon see themselves merged in 1870 to form the New Jersey Midland Railway (NJM)
In my mind, this article needs should contain far more {{fact}} tags than it has photos.
I would reject it despite its nice maps and photos. Nice maps and photos are the least of my concerns (tho having at least 1 is kinda required, if I read WP:WIAGA correctly.. but I'm surprised WP:WIAGA makes no mention of infoboxes!).
Would I be in the wrong?
Thanks -- Ling.Nut 00:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
HI again,
Anyone can list anything! There are no checks at all, unless someone just happens to get around to it. That's true for inexperienced reviewers; it's true for counterfeits ("bogies").
Am I out of line for wondering about this?
I'm walking in and commenting on a process that has existed for a while, I know...
[And thanks for the answer to q#1]. -- Ling.Nut 02:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I was wondering how folks who know me would respond to that post. Basically, if I want to explain POV to a home-schooled "Jesus Freak," I want to put it in terms that he will understand. Another editor posted a response that amounted to a challenge, but why be confrontational? I want to make NPOV make sense even to someone who thinks that their beliefs are the truth, not POV. I wrote it with irony, but not sarcasm. I was really trying to get to the NPOV idea from JesusFreak's viewpoint. Jonathan Tweet 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I've responded on the talk page. Thanks! -- Spangineer ws (háblame) 16:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Homestarmy,
Is that "home state army?"
Anyhow, if you have a moment, I'd appreciate it if you could look at Jogaila and especially at the discussion of its GA at the bottom of its talk page. It's a bit of an unusual case, in that although there is ongoing bickering over spelling issues, the bickering seems not to affect the article...
Thanks, -- Ling.Nut 22:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it common practice to delist an article by review without notification? Most users don't keep Wikipedia:Good articles/Review on their watchlist, after all. Just wondering. – Clockwork Soul 14:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm very sorry if I was a short with you: I unfairly took my bad week out on you. It won't happen again. – Clockwork Soul 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me for doing a core dump... but...
I wanted to stop being a total metawikipedian around WP:GA/R, and go actually review some more articles. So I went to look.
I...it's difficult to say. I want to keep impartiality. But I am feeling cranky.
I have spent.. I haven't looked at the history.. but hours upon hours upon hours on the page I submitted (which first got me interested in this process). In my admittedly biased opinion, it is a very important topic.
The article still has warts; it might not make GA. I wouldn't be surprised or hurt at all if it didn't. In fact, I would be faintly surprised if it passed.
Among the nominees I looked at today: one of the articles took less than 2 days to write, start to finish. And I think it might just be GA.
Another.. the topic is...[null set]. And I think it might be GA.
Yet I know... I know, if I ever even mention the N-word (that would be "notability".. stop letting your imagination fill in the blanks) I will instantly become a hated heathen, an Outcast Unclean. I have been there before!
Around GA/R, what is the status of the N-word-that-may-not-be-spoken?
I'm sure you've read this: User:Worldtraveller.
Later, -- Ling.Nut 04:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Homestarmy,
Yeah, I definitely hear what you're saying about the GA page, and about working on other projects. Maintaining a balanced perspective is important. :-)
I may be pretty light on contribs for a couple weeks starting now, but I plan to hang out on GA from now on.. just in moderation. :-) If you need help with any of the administrative-type tasks you mentioned, give me a holler any time (but that offer starts after mid-December or so. busy now.. sorry).
later! -- Ling.Nut 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I should point out that it does fail WP:WIAGA criteria 1c as I mentioned on the article's talk page. I know they are small problems but I should point out that when the problems are fixed the article can always be renominated at WP:GAN. Tarret 02:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. Moreschi 22:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
There should indeed. Thanks for picking that up. Best, Moreschi 22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
My thought was that the sentence "You cannot choose an article if you have made significant contributions to it." is in the instructions (nr 2) :-)
Fred- Chess 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Homey,
Can I ask you to explicitly vote (or repeat your vote, if you have already voted in the long discussion) on Agrippina (opera)? It has been the subject of extended discussion, and deserves closure.
Thanks -- Ling.Nut 15:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You may also wanna see Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Candidates#lotsa_undiscussed_editing_of_the_project_page.._many_people_may_want_to_have_a_say.
I left a message on Folantin's talk page saying that he would be a more appropriate person to review this article, since the person who responded on the article's talk page seems to share his (Folantin's) views of GA.
If Folantin doesn't pick this up in two days or so, would you mind doing it? But let Folantin have the first crack; I asked him first.
Thanks -- Ling.Nut 00:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It takes a somewhat strong position. If you don't get it in a day or two (subject: "Because it gives me satisfaction to think I'm helping the encyclopedia") then drop a line on my talk page. :-)
Cheers!-- Ling.Nut 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a Request for Arbitration for the Jews for Jesus article. Please provide your inputs. ParadoxTom 03:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on Requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.
For the Arbitration Committee. -- Srikeit 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Concerning your summary - [6]. I obviously haven't been paying as much attention to the talk page as I should have. I had no idea that the discussion had gotten that bad at times. JoshuaZ 05:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Everywhere I go, I am reminded of my lower station in life. I must admit, it is a little tiring: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Tamil people in FAR.
The more I look at the user's edits the more your analysis seems to be accurate. I would suggest making a note of it on the ANI discussion about the user. In any event, he is so close to getting an indef block it might not matter anyways. JoshuaZ 20:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Homestarmy,
Two or three discussions are just kinda hanging there, seemingly unresolved. I was gonna archive them but am not sure. In this case, should I archive them as No Consensus?-- Ling.Nut 15:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but this is going to be long...I am appealing to you because you seem to be one of the more level headed persons involved on the Jews for Jesus article. Please understand that it was not an intent to ram down a certain POV that brought me there. It was this sentence in the RfAr by Inigmatus: "I am one of many fustrated editors with JfJ. Even though I know the page needs help, I think if we had more input from those who do not hold to Judaism, or Messianic Judaism, or even Christianity, that we would make some true NPOV progress."
Although, I self identify as Christian, for about 10 years I was agnostic, and still remain agnostic on certain Christian religious doctrines. Therefore, I believed I could give an objective review of this article and the apparent dispute. I could not. Because of the intransigence of certain editors, the article as currently written is a joke. What editors at that article must realize is that the article isn't about Chrisitanity, Judaism, Messianic Judaism, it's about Jews for Jesus. The debate about that sentence is not necessary if the focus on the article is on the organization. Nor is classifying it Christian or Jewish or Apostate or whatever. However, if even minor edits will be scrutinized and reverted without discussion, no consensus will ever be reached.
Which brings me to this. My objection with Pastor Leigh, is not because I believe JfJ is Christian or Jewish. Personally I don't care what they are or are perceived to be. It is really about undue weight. Pastor Leigh may be a Pastor with a 100 or so followers, his opinion really shouldn't be used to denote JfJ's Christianity. Billy Graham, Pat Robertson with their millions of followers, OK, I can see that (but I'd still have reservations). The Pope, with his billion followers, well there you go, but not Pastor Leigh. I really would suggest you place that quote somewhere else and not in the introduction.
That being said, I won't make any changes at the articles anymore. Or contribute any new thoughts. I'm leaving the discussion, except to answer questions. So you needn't worry about an edit war. It's unfortunate that the the mediation never took place, and also unfortunate that I had to come across Humus Sapiens. I hope he and I never cross Wiki paths again.
Good luck. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 00:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hiya,
It might be about time to archive your talk page. ;-)
Lucifer's in a tussle, which if you wanna read, is here. I know 'cause I was watching his talk page ('cause I left him a message the other day) and someone threatened to block him.
-- Ling.Nut 01:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, i would like to see the article improve through the GA process, whether it succeeds in attaining GA or not. My simple review notes have already elicited some improvement. Could you explain what you mean by your comment "admittedly highly subjective reference standards" ? Do you mean you would like to see more sources ? One can hardly have enough sources, if that is what you mean. If that is your meaning, i would be pleased to insist on that as another essential element for promotion to GA. In any case i would like the article on hold for a week or two to give prior editors or new ones a chance to improve the article. Thanking you in advance for your cooperation, sincerely, Covalent 00:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed the article has a new category, "Christian mythology". I am curious to know your thoughts? Storm Rider (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Two sentences of WP:GAC need revision. -- Ling.Nut 13:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
If you inspect the "Railroad transport" section of GA, there's a load of articles which don't meet current GA criteria. LuciferMorgan 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you think I have been unreasonable. Or don't, if you don't want to. It is getting boring. But I.... see the other other side of the ledger as the over-reacting/unreasonable side. But whatever.
I think this arguing is just gonna continue. Nothing can stop it. Nothing except handing out free GAs, I mean. -- Ling.Nut 23:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
These and other areas are places where a scientific mechanism has yet to be successful. Attacking science in areas which are reasonably well understood and well supported with evidence is not particularly productive.
What it seems to indicate, is that creationists are not interested in:
but in trying desperately to defend biblical inerrancy. Not the best possible strategy, frankly.
This is especially true since many different sects disagree on what the bible means. To the point of killing each other.-- Filll 03:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Montanabw is the Arabian horse guy, remember? He wants to do some GA reviews to help with the backlog. If you wanna give him a teensy bit of input/feedback after he's done some things, that would be cool & thanks in advance. :-)
-- Ling.Nut 19:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The subject line says it all. :-) -- Ling.Nut 20:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what to do about Swedish literature. Don't wanna leave a message on several peoples' talk page.-- Ling.Nut 01:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I think "clarity is good" may be a quote from The Lathe of Heaven by Ursula K. LeGuin.
Anyhow, I appreciate you for being the anchor of the GA process these days and for some time previous. You have my very sincere gratitude and even respect.
But can you please do me a favor?
When you leave a WP:GA/R message on an article's talk page, can you use something very obvious like " Good Article status of this article being reviewed at WP:GA/R for possible delisting" as the subject header? Make it really obvious. There are two reasons: one is because it is simply fair, and the other is because it wards off complaints about following the rules. The first reason is good karma; the second is anti-headaches.
Similarly, when you vote, can you vote Keep or Delist in bold letters? :-)
Really, I wanna repeat, I feel I (or some vague someone somewhere) owes you a debt of gratitude for your work there. A million thanks, sincerely. -- Ling.Nut 14:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
There isn't one yet, but if it doesn't improve by the 22nd its going up for GA review, since its not especially broad in its coverage. It was me that passed it orignally. See the talk page, and let me know if I cna help. RHB 14:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi I noticed you left some comments at Roman-Spartan War talk page regarding the GA nomination it received. I failed this article but am receiving angry messages about this. Would you consider adding an opinion to the talk page as I wholly believe that this article is not suitable for GA yet. Hope you can help, Jhamez84 21:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)