User talk:A.J.A.

/Archive 1

If you seriously think there is anything in the least useful or constructive about that comment, other than as a minor Personal Attack, then by all means re-insert it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada Bay Ridge Christian College Atlantic Baptist Bible College Association of Christian Schools International Farrell Till Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education IAU Universities List Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary North Central Association of Colleges and Schools Providence Baptist College National Association of Schools of Art and Design Alliance University College Pacific International University Peter Gandy Trinity International University The Association for Biblical Higher Education The Jesus Puzzle Life Pacific College Geneva Reformed Seminary

Cleanup Internal consistency and the Bible Transcendental argument for the existence of God Adam Smith University Merge Antinomianism Christian theological controversy Christian theology Add Sources Homosexuality and Wicca ProQuest Religious ministry (Christian) Wikify Brookings Report Christian architecture E. A. Wallis Budge Expand Gangrel (World of Darkness) Presentism (philosophy of time) Homosexuality and Buddhism

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 15:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

St. Clements University (Diploma mill)

I put that article up for afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clements University, and want to know if you can find some information about? I didn't really have any luck, as of now it fails WP:V. Arbusto 15:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

punctuation

I see that you are wikistalking me again and reverting my edits. The problem this time is that you are reverting in order to re-introduce puncuation errors that I fixed. I will assume good faith that you are doing so out of ignorance of proper use of punctuation, and when you blanked material in your rv here [1] it was by accident. You should review the rules with comma, and stop wikistalking me. If you are not sure about the rules you should not revert others. I have reverted all your below reverts of me as they simply re-introduce the same punctuation errors:

03:02, 25 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m 2006 Thailand coup d'état (fix punctuation error) 02:53, 25 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Walt Whitman (rv punctuation error) 02:51, 25 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Norman Finkelstein (rv punctuation errors) 02:45, 25 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Amy Goodman (rv punctuation error).Giovanni33 04:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Question on Crown College

I saw you did a lot of changes to the Crown College article, and it looks good. But I do have a question on the categories, you removed several of the categories, like "Christian universities and colleges", I guess this is a wiki policy question, but that seems to me to be appropriate, why do we get rid of it? Mgroop 13:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Question on Almeda University

Why would you invalidate true and factual information that is validated by accurate links? You are NOT NEUTRAL, but providing only the negative comments without providing a fair and factual representation. For example, the article about a dog getting an Almeda degree is completely inaccurate. According to the BBB, Almeda has rejected (turned down) over 90,000 applicants that didn't meet the requirements. Furthermore, Almeda requires a valid identification before it confers a degree. That article has been proven false several times as the author has failed to provide a copy of Rover's diploma even after numerous requests.
Next, Almeda was never closed down in Florida by legal action. The Oregon website quoted was wrong. The Florida news article quoted by Veronica was accurate. In it, it states that that in 2003, Almeda reached an agreement with the State of Florida to cease issuing degrees from within the state of Florida and to cease direct advertising to Florida residents. If you do some research, you will find this is accurate and your statement is false. There was never any legal action.
Now you are threatening to block this accurate information in favor of inaccuracies. What do you require as proof that your information is inaccurate?

The dog item getting a degree is not true. Perhaps I am biased, but you fail to give both sides of the Almeda argument. Only one. At least I give both sides. I am much more neutral than are you. Do you think everything in the newspaper is true? The news article has given no proof at all to the validity of the dog story. Did you know that when you get a degree from Almeda they validate your Identification? Do you want me to prove that? Where did the dog get his I.D.? It didn't happen. No "doggie diploma" has ever been produced because none exist. Yes, it has been requested numerous times. There's no doggie diploma issued by Almeda anywhere. Period!

Rebuttal,

Almeda University is a fraudulent Institution that has remain active because of loopholes in the law. The facts remain that they have no legal authority to operate as a University or to grant a legitimate college degree. Technically, as an unlicensed entity Almeda University is illegal in all States.

A few points to remember about Almeda University

1. Illegal in a dozen or more States. 2. Not registered as a legitimate College. 3. Not licensed as a legitimate College. 4. Not Bonded as an academic business because it is fake. 5. Has no legal authority to grant a real college degree. 6. Not recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Education, CHEA,

  or any of their organizations.  

7. BBB has constant problems validating information about Almeda University

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.102.54 (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

removal of content regarding Kepler College

Please stop removing legitimate, reliable content regarding the programs of study at Kepler College. If you don't agree with the existence of the college, that's fine, please add your opinions and comments under Criticism and Controversy. But please don't remove factual information and quotes, especially about the description and history of the college! Thank you, Gary Lorentzen

The material is unsourced ad copy rather than encyclopedic content. A.J.A. 15:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

While I understand your perspective – I acknowledge and agree that Lorentzen is certainly far from an impartial judge of the College or its article – I would appreciate it if you wouldn't slice out chunks of text with the summary 'rvv'. While the remarks may be biased in tone, they're certainly not vandalism. Please consider, instead, revising the section in question to include factual information couched in more neutral terms. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No. A.J.A. 15:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

A.J.A., what do you mean it's 'unsourced ad copy'? I simply stated the facts about the founding of the college, its authorization and its mission. What source should I use to describe the college? I could copy and paste the actual catalogue description and history, and I'm authorized to do so, but a simple, short summary should suffice. True, I'm not 'unbiased.' I developed the curriculum and instructional designs and worked with the State for authorization. My post simply stated facts. I did shorten Enid Newberg's response to the criticism and controversy section--I didn't realize it was so long, sorry. But this section is for expressing opinions and pov's, is it not? As long as you keep deleting, I will keep posting. Gary Lorentzen

A.J.A., please stop edit warring at Kepler College, and please refrain from using edit summaries that imply the other party is a vandal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you TenOfAllTrades! Although I doubt A.J.A. will stop... Gary Lorentzen

AJ

AJ, It seems that we have been butting heads, so to speak, in certain articles. I would like to take this opportunity to open up a dialogue and see if we can come to some sort of reconciliation. I am under the impression that you consider my changes either malicious or, at the least, nefarious. Let me just assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, let me here say that I thoroughly appreciate your spirited contributions to wikipedia, and I do look forward to working with you in collaboration. I especially am thankful that you are so knowledgeable in Calvinism and Reformed Christianity, and I think this knowledge can only help the articles we work on. I will also say that I am a bit puzzled that we have so butted heads, even more so now that I have read your bio, since we are really so similar. Christian, pro life, you take the Bible seriously, — you even like coffee. I was raised in Dixie, both in Virginia and the Deep South, so (if I may venture) I am familiar and comfortable with the same culture and values that you exhibit. Our only real difference seems to be that I am Catholic, but I will say that I find myself far more comfortable with Reformed Protestants than liberals who fancy themselves as "catholics". So, at any rate, I really think we can work together, and I would like to try and come to a fresh understanding of each other and our past differences. Lostcaesar 11:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Good idea on the templates; it will take some time to implement but it seems like the best solution. I appreciate the kind words you had for me, and look forward to collaboration with you. Please don't stop keeping me honest. Your comments on my summary of Calvin were indeed off, he was speaking of the source of the authority of scripture more than interpretation, and I mistook the passage in question. I think my mistake was the source of much of our confusion in this instance. Lostcaesar 21:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Please stop using vandalism templates and vandalism-related edit summaries in point-of-view and neutrality disputes.

You have been blocked for 24 hours; longer blocks will follow if you can't be civil in editing disputes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

oops

I did not mean to rv the wording, my apologies. Lostcaesar 17:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Your protection request

Sorry, but I'm not convinced semiprotection would be the legitimate thing to do here at this point (WP:SEMI). Can you find other ways of dealing with it? As long as it's still on the level of a "normal" content dispute and not an extremely fast revert war, semi is really not the way to go. But please let me know if things get more disruptive. Thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

ESV userbox

Thought you might be interested in the new userbox I created: {{User:HokieRNB/userboxes/ESV}}. Grace and peace, HokieRNB 21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Smile

Sir james paul has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Autoblock

   unblock-auto|1=67.150.80.130|2= 

This IP address has been blocked temporarily.CheckUser evidence has determined that this IP address is being used abusively;the address has been blocked to prevent further abuse.If you are a registered user and are seeing this message, please post {{unblock}} on your talk page, with a notereferencing this message. Please be sure to include the IP address (which should appear at the bottom of the block message).Administrators: Please consult with the checkuser who placed the block before unblocking. |3=Essjay

User:Crzrussian already forwarded your request to Essjay, please wait for a bit until Essjay respond to this request. Apologize for any inconvenience caused. --WinHunter ^(talk) 02:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

I apologize for my accusation; I will be sure to look in depth into a situation before reverting in the future. Sorry for any inconvenience. --// >|< Shablog 22:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

re:christianity

I didn't change too much, did I? Lostcaesar 09:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Bold text

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aminz

Please be informed that a request for comment involving a user with whom you interacted on Christianity has been started. Beit Or 21:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

CHICOTW

I see your user name listed as a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chicago. I do not know if you are aware that we are attempting to revive the CHICOTW. See our results history. We could use additional input in nominating future articles, voting on nominees and editing winning nominees. Should you contribute you will receive weekly notices like the following:

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
Last week you voted for the Chicago COTW. Thank you! This week Rich Melman has been chosen. Please help improve it towards the quality level of a Wikipedia featured article. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see an open tasks list.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

TonyTheTiger 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Huckabee, yet again.

I've refuted your allegations of Plagarism. A comaprison of WIkipedia's 3 Jun 2006 version to that on that other site, which was last edited 4 Jun 2006, shows that they took Wikipedia's copy, replaced some proper noun 'Huckabee's with pronouns 'him' or 'he', as appropriate, and then posted it. They ripped off Wikipedia, not the other way around. I asked you a week ago to follow up on this. As you chose not to, I have. ThuranX 18:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No reply or response to my investigation of plagarism, and no replies nor help on the article. I am finding that I can no longer assume good faith regarding your participation in this article. You've been asked to be clear and asked for specific information on the talk page multiple times. Both ai.kefu and myself have tried to engage you on the talk page, but your only reply is essentially a big flipping of the bird. You dismiss anything we say as either ignoring your points, which, in fact, were all addressed, or by claiming we're out to get Huckabee. You ignore us in favor of essentially vandalizing the page. Either start working on building the section, or admit your bias against anything disparaging to Huckabee, or just leave the page alone. But continuing your vandalisms is unacceptable. You need to respond on the Talk Page to the comments left for you regarding your criticisms. ThuranX 22:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The atmosphere at the Christianity talk page

Hi, I wonder if I could persuade you, as a gesture of goodwill, to go back to the Christianity talk page and strike through or otherwise modify your comments. Things can get quite heated on the talk pages of controversial articles, and sometimes when you're frustrated, speaking your mind may seem to make things better for you in the short term, but in the long term, it can be counterproductive. And in any case, it was most unfair to include SOPHIA among those who "hate Christians", when she actually restored the text of the Creed, and tried to calm things down after the "prayers are offensive" remark, and when (you may not know this) she was extremely helpful and concerned last Easter when some Christian editors from the Christianity article became victims of some very nasty stalking, wich their real identities (contact details, etc.) posted on some website. If you think that SOPHIA's edits are motivated by hatred for Christians, you're the only Christian editors who thinks so. "Hate" is such a strong word, suggesting that someone is consumed with a desire to hurt and destroy, that I'd hesitate to use it about any of our editors. There are undoubtedly some editors who believe that Christianity is the root of all evil, and I suppose we just have to try and show them (as far as possible, without turning Wikipedia into a debating forum) that they're wrong.

Anyway, if you could soften your remarks, that would be appreciated. The people with opposing views probably feel that they're right just as much as you or I might feel that we are, and a provocative remark will invite a provocative response, making it difficult to keep the discussion on topic. I'm not going to vote either, by the way. Musical Linguist 00:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A.J.A., I specifically requested on the Christianity talk page last night that there would be no reference, direct or indirect, to past misbehaviour of any editor, unless there was evidence that the misbehaviour was continuing. I'm a little distressed to see this. As far as I recall, last summer, when Giovanni was facing the possibility of a community ban, and I and others agreed to a last chance, I gave some kind of undertaking to Giovanni that if the puppetting stopped, we would not use it against him. It was for that reason that I suggested, and other admins agreed, that the puppeteer tag should be removed from his user page, in order to make it easier for him to make a fresh start.

I suppose that the assurance I gave Giovanni was not mine to give. I could only speak for myself, in promising that there would be no ungenerous references to past incidents, no attempts to humiliate him in front of new users. I suppose the reason I felt safe making that promise was that the people who were opposing Giovanni were Christians, whom I felt I knew. It's disappointing to see that I was mistaken, and that even after a night's sleep, and time to cool down, you are still posting things that make the situation worse. The reference yesterday to "Storm Rider the Mormon" could be taken as quite offensive; certainly, it's clear that you didn't mean it as a compliment or as a neutral observation. And in bringing up another user's history of puppeting, despite the fact that that behaviour has stopped, you also took the opportunity to make a snide remark about Mormonism.

I asked Str1977 to stay away from the page where so many inflammatory posts were being made, and he agreed. When he came back the next day, he apologized for his part in adding fuel to the flames. Agathoclea made the same request of Giovanni, and he agreed. Sophia, who had not been disruptive in any way, also said she would take a break from that page. In recent months, we have all worked together well, so I was hopeful that when people had had time to calm down, this would blow over. I do appreciate the small gesture you made, in at least changing "hate Christians" to "hate Christianity", though I feel that what you changed it to is still unjust and unnecessary. I would love if you could bring yourself to remove your last comment, but even if you can't I would earnestly request you not to post any more of the same. The preview button is a great way to help editors not to post inflammatory stuff. I use it myself, when I'm annoyed with another editor; it helps me not to post things that will make the situation worse. Musical Linguist 02:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A.J.A., I don't recall what I said to Giovanni at the time, and I don't have time to go looking for diffs. I certainly didn't make an explicitly-worded promise about exactly what people would or wouldn't say, on behalf of people who should have been consulted. I was, at the time, sending a few private e-mails to other editors. Suffice it to say that I would have felt comfortable in saying that I felt that my fellow Christians (and my fellow admins) would not stoop to taunting, or to making ungenerous references to something that I hoped would become a part of the past, and which, I think, has become a part of the past. It is indeed sad that I should be proved to be wrong in saying that Christians would not engage in such pettiness. I suggest that your inflammatory posts are likely to cause more damage to Christianity than Giovanni's annoying edits about Christianity being a self-styled monotheistic religion based on stories about a character called Jesus. Certainly, they are more damaging to Christianity than the removal of the Creed (replaced by a link to the full text) from the article would be, because they make Christians (and consequently Christianity) look bad — look really bad, in fact. I can assure you that "Storm Rider the Mormon", as you so insultingly called him, and Sophia, the atheist who "hates Christianity", as you also said (have you ever looked into the help she gave to Christians who were being stalked last Easter?), would never do what you have been doing in the last two days. I ask you to consider:

1. Have your recent posts to Talk:Christianity been in accordance with what you feel Jesus would want?
2. Do they make Christians and Christianity look good?
3. Are they helpful in calming down the situation so that we can all start working together again?
4. Do they have any advantage (other than perhaps giving you some kind of release from feelings of irritation) that you feel outweighs the disadvantage of offending others?

I really hope that you'll agree to stop making derogatory remarks about non-Christians, regardless of your opinions of them. I'm not going to take any admin action on a page I'm active at, but another admin might become interested in this squabble, and I can tell you that people have been blocked for less. Please, don't let it come to that. I think the atheists are big enough to let this blow over and make a new effort to work together, so the question is: are the Christians? Musical Linguist 22:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Curious about Huckabee edits

It seems like there were a few POV eidts in your large edit of the Huckabee article. I am curious as to the intent of the mass change and POV statements added in? Thanks - Eisenmond 20:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Hi, you've been reported for a 3RR violation at Mike Huckabee and have been blocked for 24 hours. Please use the time to review the 3RR policy. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

A.J.A. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I know of no report other than a false one placed on the noticeboard. I did review the edit history and if you ignore the fact that "Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons" is exempt, it was a technical violation. But 1) you shouldn't ignore that (indeed, suggesting that I review a policy you need to review is insulting) and 2) blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, and there can be no reasonable preventative justification for this block. (Ed. to add: I'm not the only editor who's concluded the content falls into that category [3].)

Decline reason:

The block has now expired by time. Please enjoy editing and avoid edit-warring. Newyorkbrad 02:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Invitation

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Calvinism The goal of WikiProject Calvinism is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Calvinism available on Wikipedia. WP:WikiProject Calvinism as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Calvinism, but prefers that all Calvinist traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

--Flex (talk|contribs) 16:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Calvinism

We need more input on what should be in the Template for Calvinism. Please share your thoughts in the sections of the talk page starting with Template_talk:Calvinism#Barth_and_Reformed_Baptists. --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Calvinism news

Hi. I'm recommending to all participants in WikiProject Calvinism that they keep up with at least the News page ({{Wikipedia:WikiProject Calvinism/News}}) for this project. The methods I'd recommend for doing this are any or all of:

• Add the abovementioned page to your watchlist
• Include the page on another page you look at regularly; in my case, this is my user page, since I keep my personal "todo" list there. That would look something like:

News from WikiProject Reformed Christianity

Last change: 2009/07/16

All the Reformed Christianity–related news that is news from across the encyclopedia

Update

We have updated the look of the project and corrected some things like the collaboration to reflect the reality on the ground. Check it out and get involved!

Collaboration

• The current collaboration is Reformed Christianity
• Nominate or vote for your favourite articles so that they can be the next collaboration; see Collaboration page for details.

Most important tasks

• Collaborate on this month's Collaboration article.

-- TimNelson 00:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Malhotra

Why did you revert my edits on Malhotra? They were in good faith. The version you reverted to contains absolutely unsourced lies about Malhotra's being descendents of the Hindu Lord Yudhishtira, who is revered by most Hindus as a symbol of the ideal Hindu. You would thus understand the motives for wanting to say that all Malhotras are descendants of Yudhistira. The article also contains emphasis on the presence of an elite Dhai Ghar which rules over all other Kshatriya (rulers and warriors) in Punjab. This is unsourced and I believed Wikipedia relied on it's most basic policies like WP:RS, thus I am most disappointed and disconcerted by your revert. The version you reverted to also contains the names of non-notable people who's EXISTENCE is not even referenced. My version, if you check, contains only sourced and verifiable facts. I will not revert you for now because I want no conflict, but I would aks you to review your revert and revert yourself. dishant 07:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Edits by Dishant55555

The edit by A.J.A removed edits by Dishant55555 which a number of users have put down as Vandalism by Dishant55555. The article mention's a Dhai Gar but does not as you claim, say they rule over everyone in Punjab, but it is a prominent grouping within the Khatri caste and does not give it undue note. This existance of this is clearly a historical fact (Google has 1,600 articles on it)

I have checked your other edits and note that you have made claims that Luthra 's (the page referes to Dishant55555 as Dishant Luthra) ruled over India with the Gupta's, and that Luthra occupy the senior army ranks and are ruling class, for which there are no sources. This is in clear violation of Wikipedia policies.

I note that Dishant55555 having repeatedly undone reverts from other users who have removed people who are clearly not prominent as per wiki guidelines indeed none of those listed appear to fulfil wiki guidelines -

Please see wiki notes on editing articles where you may have a conflict of interest such as a family link.

For example - You have repeatedly entered a Semma Luthra - as a politician - who another user has deleted as not being prominent citing that the link you have provided shows she is one of the losing politicians in a small municipal election.

Wiki guidelines state to enter a politician they must -

   * Politicians:
         o Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.5
         o Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.4
         o Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.

Dishant55555 please familiarise yourself with wiki guidelines before undoing other user edits.

I don't have time to reply right now and so I won't revert either. But when I do get time I will give you an explanation and will revert. Regards. dishant 09:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on DaGizzas talk page. dishant 04:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Accreditation Governing Commission of the United States of America

An editor has nominated Accreditation Governing Commission of the United States of America, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. --Orange Mike 16:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User Philosopher1

FYI, User:Philosopher1 who has been vandalizing Christianity is a suspected sock puppet of the notorious Maleabroad, whose exploits are documented at: User:Abecedare/Maleabroad. He has a long pattern of religious hatred and those who are disrupted by his continuous new socks are encouraged to report new incidents so he can be quickly identified and controlled. Due to extreme pressure on him from within the Hinduism project he appears to be moving out to secondary targets, and I believe that Christianity has been vandalized in connection with that. If you wish to help with control of this vandalism don't hesitate to post new evidence. Buddhipriya 19:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

re: persons

Hi there AJA,

I think my point in using the word person in reference to Jesus was in the broader context of mixing possibly disparate meanings and definitions in the article as a whole, i.e. ascension, assumption, translation, especially in relation to the search for a name for this article.

To say that Jesus and Mohamed and Appolonius were the same type of being experiencing the same type of journey to the same place is not supportable, in my view. Further, to state in the context of this encyclopedic article, that God the Father is a person in the same mannner that a mortal being is a person would be wrong. I also think that is very clear from the context of my note.

I am assuming in good faith here, in that I think Jesus is very important to you, that you are not just trolling to find someone to dispute with. I also stated that I use Judeo/Christian terminology to explore my own spiritual beliefs (including the term Docetism), but made no claim to being a Christian or representing the beliefs of that faith.

If the meaning and intent of my note is still unclear to you, let me know.

If you have any suggestions for the title of the article that resolve the problems I set out, please add them to the discussion.

If the rightness or wrongness of my personal beliefs is a concern of yours, please ponder it in the stillness of your heart.

Have a nice day, killing sparrows 19:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It would have been more useful to keep the conversation on the Talk page.

In any case, you're quite wrong in your claims about usage. "Person" is the word for the Father and a human, and is used in the same sense. It doesn't mean "human". They had words for that, anthropos or homo. Hypostasis and persona were coined specifically to include both human and divine persons, and our "person" is a direct cognate of persona.

You did claim to represent the beliefs of Christianity. A.J.A. 20:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there AJA,

The only references I have made to my beliefs are as follows...

'Being raised in a Western/Christian culture, as I assume most of us are (whether we are 'believers' or not), it is easy to assume that 'heaven' is a universal concept, but is that really the case?'

and...

'For the record, and totally irrelevant to the discussion, I use Chrisian/Jewish terminolgy to explore my own beliefs, such as they are. I think there is Something. Maybe.'

and the only claim I made as to what viewpoint I represent was...

'We are not writing an article for any smaller subset than humanity, it should be just as NPOV viewed by Christian, Muslim, Taoist or Atheist, or those in the embrace of the Noodly Appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.'

As for my claim to be a confirmed Docetist, note the smiley face at the end of the paragraph. You may interpret this as my attempt to bring a bit of lightness into this discourse and at the same time recognize and appreciate your obvious familiarity with the deeper theological issues involved, which deeper issues, while valid, are irrelevant to the issue of the difficulties in naming this article.

...thus I find your claim of what I represent unsupported.

I do claim that I have enough knowledge of Christianity to say that these terms and persons have debatable, disparate meanings and natures, and that grouping them together presents a difficulty in the naming of this article. Which is what I was trying to spell out in the original post.

If you cannot see my point, then fine. If you think that all are the same in all charactaristics and all experienced the same event and went to the same destination in the same way and thus it is perfectly valid to group them all in the same article under any title, fine. State this in the discussion on naming.

As to moving the conversation here, we are not talking about the article, you are quibbling over my usage of the word person, my concerns over which I believe are clearly spelled out as relating to the context of this article and the potential ambiguities it introduces in defining the article and the criteria for inclusion in it.

Have a nice day! --killing sparrows 22:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You said "This is a theological term with a precise meaning in the Christian faith", and then go on to offer a badly misleading summary of what, according to you, Jesus is believed to be "in the faith". That a misrepresentation of the beliefs of Christianity, and every misrepresentation includes, at least implicitly, a false claim to accurate representation.

If you don't know and refuse to learn what we mean by "person", you don't have enough knowledge of Christianity to describe fine differences in the terms, especially since you based your fine distinction on Jesus not being a person. A.J.A. 22:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there AJA,

We seem to have come to the point of what is nearly an uncivil dispute and for my part in that I apologize. I do see the point you are making regarding my errors in defining some terminology and beliefs, and in defense can only say again, I wasn't trying to precisely delineate the terms or concepts as much as I was trying to point out that there exists an issue in regards to naming.

I see from your edit history that you have made many valuable contributions to Wikipedia over a long period of time and I respect that and hope that as time goes by I can be as valuable to the project as you have been. I also see that we share many interests, although my short tenure here and smaller edit history will not reflect that.

I enjoy lively debate and would love to sit down and talk with you over a few beers and discuss life, the universe and everything, it is so rare to find someone who even knows what Docetism is!

I hope there are no hard feelings and that you can help with the naming issue if you are interested and that we get a chance to work together in the future in some positive way!

Have a nice day!killing sparrows 23:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Category renaming vote

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_4#Changing_nomination. --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

WP Christianity

Hi, I saw your name on the WikiProject Christianity Membership page.

I've made some changes to the WP Christianity main project page, added several sup-project pages, created a few task forces section, and proposed several more possible changes so that we can really start making some serious progress on the project. Please stop by and see my comments on the project talk page here and consider joining a task force or helping out with improving and contributing to our sub-projects. Thanks for your time! Nswinton 13:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted two of your edits. 1) Please do not remove the alternate identity of Abaddon, it is not up to you to decide what Jehovahs witnesses believe and it is the only belief on the identity of Abaddon that is not demonic, and 2) Please do not redirect an article into another, Jehovah into Yahweh without discussion and concensus, these articles are not the same. thank you Ice9Tea 13:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reversion to the Abaddon article. Unfortunately it appears that Ice9Tea believes that NPOV means that only the minority JW position should be published and not the majority Christian position. 66.177.5.252 05:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

please stop redirecting the article Jehovah

it does not belong in Yahweh, it is a peparate article Ice9Tea 04:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton

There are, of course, two issues: (1) whether there should be two articles on the Tetragrammaton and (2) where the edit history should be (with the Tetragrammaton or the Transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton article.

Assuming for a minute that there should be two articles, why do you think the edit history should be with the Tetragrammaton article and not the Transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton article? I actually thought about this and figured that there was more content about the transcriptions than anything else and so I decided that the edit history should go with Transcriptions of the Tetragrammaton.

What is your thinking on this issue?

--Richard 04:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A person looking for the history of how Wikipedia has covered the Tetragrammaton will look at that article's history, not at a sub-article's history. A.J.A. 05:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

Are you comfortable with the "footnote solution" proposed by Matt Britt over at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses?

Since you were an active participant in the discussion, it would be good to get your input on this proposal.

--Richard 16:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yahweh (disambiguation)

Please see my comment at Talk:Jehovah#Disambiguation_pages --Tikiwont 07:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Christianity and Buddhism

Hi A.H.A. Unilaterally destroying a 50Kb article just because you think it is POV is really not a solution on Wikipedia. Please discuss, modify and build on other's work rather than erase it all. There are a lot of references in there which cannot be denied (although I agree the article content is far from perfect). Thank you to respect other's work (of which I am only a very little part in this case). PHG 18:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not "salvaging" anything by transforming this article into a meaningless stub. Honestly, it seems your only interest is in deleting any references to parallels and interactions between Christian and Buddhism. Why? Why delete parallel quotes, and even delete indisputable information such as the history of the Greco-Buddhist interaction and the embassies of Ashoka? PHG 19:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing

aja, your opinion that revelation 9:11 specifically identifies Abaddon as a demon has been shown to be untrue. your belief that Jehovahs witness beliefs can be accurately stated in a publication called "Jehovahs Witness doctrine of deception" is POV. I will be asking for mediation on the Abaddon page. --Ice9Tea 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thought I believe we can work this disagreement out between the two of us. please join me on the Abaddon talk page. thanks --Ice9Tea 14:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

AJA erasing content from your talk page proves nothing. but your calling me a heretic shows that you have bias against Jehovahs Witnesses. it shows in your editing. please remove the attacks from the pages abaddon and apollyon.Ice9Tea 11:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Esv-cover.jpg

Hello, A.J.A.. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Esv-cover.jpg) was found at the following location: User:A.J.A.. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you AJA, with your suggestions the article Abaddon is starting to look better. Wonderpet 20:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A.J.A. please discontinue reverting for the purpose of linking to anti JW websites, if you wish to do legitimate wikipedic editing pleaselearn to go about it properly, especially learn about NPOV and Libel. Wonderpet 00:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Devil Discussion

I think we've fairly well established that you personally disagree with statements I make and then your brain shuts. It's not worth responding to one another. MerricMaker 14:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It isn't particularly difficult to refute something which tells me either you disagree with, or are unfamiliar with the sources I cite, but which makes no substantive evaluation. Also, I find that I must sheepishly apologize for my previous response to you. Your handle is very much like someone I had dealt with in the past, who was rather a jackass, sorry to respond thinking that you were he. That aside, simply because you haven't heard the argument before, or because you say it's being developed on-the-fly does not mean its resources aren't valid or that it isn't a coherent position. Make a constructive evaluation and I'll be glad to hear it. MerricMaker 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

we can agree

It is a good edit on Abaddon, fair and not riddled with anti jehovahs witness web links. We do agree on most of the edits you make, such as your edit to 3 (number) which personifies God as opposed to the wording you replaced which tended to make Him less of a person and more of a thing. Your current version of Abaddon is the one I will defend. Wonderpet 19:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Christianity and Buddhism

FYI, I have posted a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents asking for a neutral admin to look into your blanking/stubbification of this article. Since you don't think my opinion is valid, it's time we brought a neutral third party in to help us resolve this.

--Richard 06:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have looked over the matter briefly. I have no comment to make on the various referenced claims, nor their reliability, as this constitutes content dispute. I would comment, however, that I consider reducing the article to a stub as per your edit here is inappropriate. There are various avenues to address content disputes, with the article talkpage being the primary location. I suggest you take your concerns there. In the meanwhile please do not drastically alter the article without consensus. LessHeard vanU 10:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Over ten reversions?

I fail to see how I have done over ten reversions — I reverted your edits twice. Once because you removed an administrative tag without a valid reason, and one more time because you reinserted two links to blogs without a valid reason. If you want to take it to AN/3RR, be my guest. But I doubt they will see it the same way you have put it on my talk page.

Oh, and please remember,

Hi. I noticed that you transcluded or substituted a template to respond to or notify a regular editor with whom you disagree. The main purpose of many of these templates is to inform the receiver of policy (e.g., that there is a numerical limit to reversion on content of an article within a time period, that personal attacks or vandalism can result in a block, that they can edit a page constructively without permission, etc.) It is likely that this editor knows this, and if he or she has breached or ignored these, please respond with a personal message. Thanks! Silly rabbit 20:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Category query

Hi AJA. I was wondering, what is your take on the AFA category problem? [2]Hal Cross 04:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ezekiel comment

Can you explain your random comment about Ezekiel and excrement you inserted in the Talk: Christianity page? I hesitate to delete things from a discussion page without making sure it's vandalism or something else... --Anietor 02:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks for clarifying. Good job pointing out a few of the problems with the essay! Cheers. --Anietor 03:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to see someone else noticed that there was something off with that essay. I have an odd feeling, however, that Gio is going to fight tooth and nail to keep that flaming piece of OR on the external links, though. Djma12 ^(talk) 04:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Jan de Bakker#Heretical

Removal of the term Heresy from the Jan de Bakker article is inappropriate. There is a lengthy discussion about this issue on the talk page. In de 16th century "heresy" was a crime, and could have severe consequences, including capital punishment. The circumstances and nature of this "crime" are clearly explained in the main article, and in even more detail on the talk page. Furthermore, the sources on which this article is based all use the word "heresy" as well. JdH 18:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Mao

Hello A.J.A. I am RS2007. I am an atheist. However, I respect the views of religious believers. And, I don’t say anything bad about religion. Would you call Hitler a Christian thinker or activist? No. Similarly, we atheist don't call Mao an atheist thinker or activist. Mao was against religion because he saw religion as a rival power. Please respect the views of atheists. Thank you. RS2007 05:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A.G.A, there is no need for an argument. You are a Christian and I respect your religious views. Regards, RS2007 04:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Our Exchanges

Yet again, while trying to have a productive discussion you have misunderstood everything I say. You label opinions as liberal or fashionable and scuttle any possibility to productively exchange information. A.J.A., it is amazing to me that you misinterpret everything that I post, then format responses to address things I have never said and opinions I have never expressed. Apparently you prefer discussions in which the opinions of your discussion partners are those which you ascribe to them in error. For example, merely because I point out that there are only three statements about pederasty in the New Testament does not indicate my wish to ignore the book--something which you seem to think I imply. It is an indication that the authors and editors of the New Testament appeared to think that three references were plenty. Consider those three references to pederasty, then consider how many references are made to loving one's enemies, gaining new life in Christ, and generally transforming former modes of being by incorporating oneself into the Christian life. The point is to make stories in scripture into our own stories by schooling ourselves in the historical and cultural context from which they come, not ignoring them. What enables you misunderstand me so fully, I think, is that you’ve labeled me. It is because of this sort of petty unwillingness to hear others that Wikipedia remains in the realm of the mundane and does not constitute a legitimate source for citation. MerricMaker 03:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I simply felt that a discussion of this sort had no proper place at its previous venue. You evaluate this relocation (something I did out of propriety) as being some sort of underhanded tactic, further suggesting that this discussion is beneath you, since your partner in the discussion is obviously willing to stoop to such dishonorable tactics as forcing you to look at your talk page. I realize something. I wonder if it could be this simple? Is the source of your disagreement with me, which invariably occurs around scripture, be that you find any form-critical evaluation of scripture to be abhorrent?

I state, more or less, that the New Testament only mentions pederasty three times and that this is representative of its editors and author’s lack of concern with the matter. You take this to indicate an utter disregard for the New Testament. Pederasty was indeed not the subject of the previous discussion, but that is the direct translation of the word used in the Greek text, since Greek uses no other word. Therefore, if one talks about what the New Testament says about homosexuality, one must first address that issue of vocabulary. This is a form-critical evaluation of scripture.

I state that after Nicea set the Biblical Canon, male dominated culture continued to dominate Christianity and read scripture so as to suit themselves best; that is, using it to justify slavery, beating their wives, and so on. You take this to indicate that I believe an editorial conspiracy took place at Nicea, somehow producing an inaccurate representation of Jesus. You simultaneously intimate that I am a conspiracy theorist; therefore both I and my line of thinking are implied to be spurious. There are many hundreds of apocryphal texts and gospels in the document rooms of Harvard, Cambridge, and several other places besides, which were considered for the Bible, but not included in the final text, see Pagels, The Gospel of Thomas. This does not represent a lack of abundance, and thus evidence of a conspiracy. It represents nothing more than the fact that an editorial board did some woodsheding. This is a historical-critical evaluation which draws on form criticism.

Is it that you believe the Bible is perfect, and that any criticism of scripture is, by necessity, an invalidation of the text in total? Whatever the case, and I no longer care, thank you for demonstrating my point again. To be fairly rude, you're just not worth the energy if you can't be bothered to understand me and only reply with: "no, it's you who don't understand me" or, "no, it's you who are intolerant." MerricMaker 23:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Greetings A.J.A.! This user has just wished you Happy Holidays. This user sent this message to you. This template is made for Christians, Jews, and Afican Americans. Wishing you a Happy Holidays promotes WikiLove and hopefully, this has made your holidays even better. So Happy Christmas to you!

--Angel David (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Huckabee...

Why was the tax and immigration information completely deleted? It was not moved to any subarticles as claimed. It is not my responsibility to integrate it in the article when someone else deleted it. I believe you removed it so please fix it. I didn't rearrange any sentences, I just copied and pasted it from the original criticism section.

Jeremy221 (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work. I didn't say you moved it. I said "I believe you removed it." I was just a little irritated the information was removed. Anyways, I added the info back to the appropriate section and hopefully the Huckabee article has been fixed.

Merry Christmas,

Jeremy221 (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple English WikiProject

Hello! You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Christianity. I would like to let you know that a Christianity Project has been created on the Simple English Wikipedia and it is located here. If you are interested, please consider creating an account on Simple English and sign up for the project. Thank you!

--Andrew from NC (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter

Hi A.J.A., I was just wondering why you believe that your religion is the right one. I’d like to get a discussion going. Get back to me. All the best. MagicBullet5 (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Christianity WikiProject Newsletter - July 2008

This Newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

You have been marked as an inactive member of WP:CHICAGO since you have not updated your status at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please correct your status. If you consider yourself a member you may want to get involved in the Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3. Also, if you are a member, be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHICAGO

You have been not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO, but you have a userspace page linked to {{User WPChicago}}. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members where you may currently be listed as inactive. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Large text removal at Sarah Palin

Why did you remove about half of the Sarah Palin article? Superm401 - Talk 05:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop deleting large portions (about half) of the Sarah Palin article. A case could be made that it is vandalism. Drawn Some (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it can't. Pay attention next time. A.J.A. (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be less likely to confuse people if you didn't use blank or misleading edit summaries. Superm401 - Talk 05:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I demand you justify the accusation that my edit summaries are misleading. A.J.A. (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting half of the article is not "minor cleanup", regardless of the reason. Superm401 - Talk 05:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete any of the article. I just made it so that there's only one of it. A.J.A. (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You duplicated the article, then deleted the half you duplicated. If you had explained that in the first edit, there wouldn't have been a misunderstanding. Superm401 - Talk 05:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is simple cleanup and I'm allowed to say so in my edit summary. Your accusation is baseless. A.J.A. (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing half a medium-sized article and calling it "minor cleanup" is not fooling anyone. Drawn Some (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Pay attention. A.J.A. (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it time to report GreekParadise for 3rr yet? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You and Kyaa have no right to remove sourced material. You cannot deny Buchanan said Palin was in her campaign. You can hear his voice in the source. PLEASE STOP PUTTING POV IN THE PALIN ARTICLE! If you have a contrary source, post it. If you have a better way of expressing it, fine. But Buchanan said she was a supporter (a "brigader") and Palin hasn't as of yet denied it. (And if she does, you can state that too.) If either of you report me, I will report you both, because both of you have done 3rr. And AJA, apparently you have a history of removing sourced material from the Sarah Palin article. Please stop this vandalism. If you have a contrary source, you are welcome to include it. But this is supposed to be an objective source not a place to express political views. If we have to, we can put it to the wikipedians for a vote. I'm confident I'll win because you cannot deny the source. If you feel the need to revert one more time, let's instead ask the administrators to resolve the issue.GreekParadise (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin removal

Please edit the library entry to remove slant rather than questioning the validity of nationally known source research. -Gych (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Debunked?

Assuming you're referring to the censorship claims, it's a notable story in a reliable source. I have no problem with you finding other viewpoints and nuance, but you can't just remove it because you think someone is going to ride in and "debunk" it. The basic facts are unlikely to change (firing/rehiring, statements she made at public meetings, statements made in "The Frontiersman") indicating it's not an imaginary story. Superm401 - Talk 08:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. We don't have to wait for The Truth®. If it's a current, verifiable viewpoint in a reliable (reliable does not mean perfect) source, it should be included. You would certainly be wise to be skeptical when reading any political article, here or elsewhere. That does not mean we can't include anything negative. Superm401 - Talk 08:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How did you turn "You would certainly be wise to be skeptical" into "I'm NEVER entitled to be skeptical."? Superm401 - Talk 19:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Question/request

Is this edit even remotely appropriate? I know it's intended as sarcasm, but sarcasm does not carry well over text and it could be construed as a serious comment about the image. You wouldn't mind removing/rewording it, would you? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I could remove the edit as a BLP violation, just figured you'd like to do it yourself... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't revert my edits without giving a reason

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary

If you have a problem with them, say so on the talk page.

Thank you!GreekParadise (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

art and lit people hate infoboxes

Re Calvin: art and lit people hate infoboxes. You're climbing into a box of ornery street cats by placing one on the article.. are you trying to standardize articles on a religious theme? I would oppose the move as well. "Calvinism" is not "Calvin" and vice versa. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, many folks hate infoboxes. They have their own little secret handshake and all. If you wanna put one on the article, you should create a horizontal version and put in the the See Also... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There are, I assume, many articles that are subtopics of Calvinism, and which could safely and appropriately be graced by the presence of an infobox in the lead. But "Calvin" is not a subtopic of "Calvinism". Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to wait for others to weigh in (unless they think my revert settles the matter). You will probably find yourself at odds with...mmmm... many folks who are probably major contributors to the article. Besides, he is not a subtopic of his own thought. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection, I haven't contributed at all, so it's hard for me to own it. I suppose I may have made one or two copy edits, but I don't recall doing so. No, I'm opposed based on the logic of categorization as stated above. It's also based on a prediction that others will also oppose, and may not be polite when doing so. Sorry. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I suppose you've seen RHB's reply. That reply shows that 1) it is not my personal, isolated, idiosyncratic view, and 2) the logic I gave was correct: Calvin is in fact a subtopic of theologians but not of Calvinism. But art and lit folks hate all such boxes, regardless of classificatory schemes. I am not arging with you, I promise. I'm trying to persuade you. I'll drop totally out of the discussion... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Buddhism and Christianity

See ammunition supplied. However, I have to warn you that I've been unable to find an effective procedure in Wikipedia for getting its content policies enforced. If you can find one, please let me know. Peter jackson (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Re that - you could always ask me. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have three questions

I made an edit today--one edit--to the article Carrie Prejean and have not made an edit to the article in days, but yet another editor reversed my ONE edit and then reported me on the 3RR notice board. I find this to be a clear use of Wikipedia to win a debate about article content and direction. Prejean was called a series of negative things by Perez Hilton, most of the words are contemptuous and vile, such as the b-word and c-word. There are editors that believe that each and every one of Hilton's use of those words MUST be included in the article about Prejean. Now, I don't see the need to have an article about Prejean dominated by the words and comments of ONE individual (highly negative words at that) dominate the life story of Prejean. It is tantamount to having the words of Saddam Hussein concerning George W Bush dominate the Wikipedia article about Bush. It violates Wikipedia avowed goal of NPOV and it violates BLP. Now, I know that consensus in Wikipedia editing is one of the goals, but consensus does NOT override other valid Wikipedia ideals such as BLP. There can be a compromise made where the gist of Hilton's highly negative opinion is included in the article, but at the same time it does NOT dominate the life story of Prejean. Prejean is notable for many, many reasons, not just her public fight with Hilton. She is notable for being a successful model; she is notable for participating in Deal or No Deal; she is notable for being the current Miss California USA; and she is now notable for being a TV personality. My first question is: Can you at least review the article and see if the second, third, fourth, and fifth repetitions of the b-word and c-word violates BLP? I believe that it does. And my second question is: Is it appropriate to make a report on an editor for violating 3RR even though that editor has only made one edit? And my third question is: Is misusing 3RR to win a debate on the proper interpretation of BLP appropriate? I don't think so.--InaMaka (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Buddhism and Christianity

Drive-by warning tags without discussion on talk will be removed immediately. Your previous edit summary, Christians do not usually refer to Jesus as a prophet without immediately aso specifying that He is more, and 2) Buddhism is not theist and therefore has no concept of prophecy strikes me as incredibly narrow and ignorant, considering the "prophecies" discussed in the article on Maitreya, etc. Is it too much to ask you to edit from the facts rather than from your distorted opinion of the world? Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps English is not your first language. The primary meaning of prophet is and always has been a spokesman for God (or a god); one who predicts things is a secondary and derivative meaning. See [3]. If it wasn't clear enough from the context of the discussion, my explanation as to why Buddha couldn't have been a prophet made it explicit which meaning I was using.

You owe me an apology. A.J.A. (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You do not personally speak for 34,000 sects of Christianity, comprising 1.5-2.1 billion adherents. Furthermore, you do not speak for the hundreds of millions of Buddhists. Your statements on what Christians believe and what Buddhists believe is neither supported by the sources or by their followers. Buddha is commonly referred to as a prophet in the secular religious literature and there are many prophets and prophecies spoken of in that regard. Your narrow definition of the word "prophet" seems to serve your own interests and does not reflect actual usage. Your definitions of key concepts related to religions is also narrow and singular, and appears to promote only one POV rather than those of belief systems other than your own. Your comments on Talk:Buddhism_and_Christianity have been generally unhelpful and unconstructive, and seem to consist of POV pushing to the detriment of competing POV that you refuse to acknowledge. If you feel it necessary to try and prove me wrong, then please show me one single edit contribution you have made to Wikipedia since you began editing on 18 December 2005, where you have actively tried to write for the enemy, understand a POV that does not belong to you, and compose a sentence or a paragraph that does not reflect your own personal belief system. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As to the definition of "prophet", you're arguing with the dictionary, not me.

The rest of your comment hardly merits a reply. The article as it stands and has stood is a poorly-written personal essay advocating a fringe view. As someone who defends that, you have no standing to accuse others of much of anything.

You owe me several apologies. A.J.A. (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you do not understand the purpose of dictionaries or how they work. If you wish to discuss this further, I would invite you to use the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there some unstated argument there or did you simply feel an urge to say anything and so posted the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I"? A.J.A. (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm waiting for you to post your list of problems to the article talk page so we can fix them. Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that you could not offer me one single diff showing a single editorial contribution from your edit history to Wikipedia that does not consist of POV pushing of some kind. Surely, you can find one diff for me? Viriditas (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't jump for POV pushers. A.J.A. (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop looking in the mirror. I'm not pushing anything but you - and I'm pushing you in the direction of the talk page where we can work together to improve the article. Understand? Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And before you continue down this path, let it be said, you already have a documented history of disruptive editing in regards to the Buddhism and Christianity article, and this is documented on the noticeboards. Continue down this path, and I will post a new report. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I was in the right then and I'm in the right now. The "other side" consists of people who demand that Helena Blavatsky --still, after over a year! -- be recommended as a serious authority. There is no other side that can be taken seriously; you simply have nothing intelligent to say, which is why you resort to merely formal complaints (e.g., length). A.J.A. (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason you aren't on the talk page raising specific objections about content, and instead, you are here attacking me? I'm really not following your throught process. Are you here to improve Wikipedia or what? Viriditas (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please use the talk page to point out these so-called "fringe" views and I will be happy to remove them. Of course, you are using the term "fringe" here to mean anything that contradicts your personal worldview. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that we do not edit articles from our beliefs. We edit articles based on sources. Viriditas (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I did point them out, as you know. By fringe I mean they have absolutely no academic respectability, which becomes very apparently when you examine the sources: outdated secondary sources, vaguely cited tertiary sources, and personal websites like "jesusisbuddha.com". A.J.A. (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did you point them out? Use the talk page and post a list of the problems so we can fix them. You've been here since 2005; which part of this process is giving you problems? Viriditas (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Viriditas chose to begin this discussion here, on my talk page, and now complains that I answer him here rather than elsewhere, despite the fact that his own Talk page opens with a request that discussions he begins on others Talk pages be continued on those pages. Note that he told another user to take the discussion away from the article Talk page [4].

2) He chose to make a series of personal attacks, and then when I point out his own lack of standing, he acts as if I were the one making attacks (and as if I had chosen the venue).

3) He knows that I have participated heavily in the article Talk page and he knows exactly the nature of my objections to the poorly written, biased, inaccurate text he has insisted upon. A detailed description would be quite lengthy (to no purpose), but it can be stated in brief: the article is an advocacy piece for a fringe theory. I explained this detail over a year ago; embarrassingly, the article is only slightly better now, and the original discussion remains on the Talk page. That being the case, his repeated claim that the tags are "drive-by" and unsupported by Talk page discussion are misleading. Also misleading is his asking me to list problems "so we can fix them"; he gives every impression of being in favor of the problems. A.J.A. (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging

Editors who add maintenance tags must discuss the problem on the talk page and point to specific problems that can be fixed. Editors cannot hold articles hostage without discussion. For the second time, please use the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)