User talk:KHM03/Archive 7

This is ARCHIVE 7 for my talk page....

6 Jan 06 through 9 Feb 06.

Keith:

I left a "let us reason together" post on Sola's talk page. We'll see what happens. Greg, aka --Midnite Critic 13:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support on my request for adminiship, I'm sure you'll be glad to know the final result was 92/1/0. I am now an administrator and (as always) if I do anything you have issue with, please talk about it with me. --Alf ^melmac 10:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pgk's RFA

---

Thanks for your support on my request for adminship.

The final outcome was (80/3/0), so I am now an administrator. I was flattered by the level of support and the comments, so I'm under real pressure not to disappoint, thus if you have any queries, suggestions or problems with any of my actions as an admin then please leave me a note --pgk^(talk) 10:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith:

I noticed that you had Image:PittsburghSteelers 100.png in a userbox on your userpage; I'm not sure if you're aware of the current userbox fiasco, but I didn't want you to get caught up in it. Since that image is fair-use, it can't (at least under current Wikipedia policy) be used on userpages. I don't like removing images, period, and I certainly don't like doing it without replacing it with something; I couldn't find anything suitable on WP or Commons, so I dummied up a quick image in Paint using the Steeler's colors (I was trying to go for the look of the gold stripe on the black helmet.) Feel free to change it to something else you like better, I just didn't want you to get caught up in the current mess. -- Essjay · Talk 12:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Yeah, it's been nuts; its one of those times when being an admin is less-than-fun. From what I understand, Jimbo has allowed blocking for repeated violations (i.e., fairuse images are removed, user reinserts, etc.) and it's devlolved into a war between those who are compelled to uphold policy as it has come down from Jimbo, and those who disagree with the policy. I'm staying out of it, except to remove fairuse images from friends' pages when I see them so they won't get caught up in it. Oy vey! -- Essjay · Talk 13:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

(I'm also a big fan of the ESV.)

A.J.A. 01:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPAM as to the reasoning behind the link removal. Thanks...KHM03 19:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Large article, and quite vague in a lot of ways. Care to be more specific? WarriorScribe 19:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here. Also, the site seems to me to attack one person (Jason Gastrich...not even sure who that is), rather than the issue at large. is there a specific article on the site which deals specifically with the issue of inerrancy? KHM03 20:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these applications of "spam" qualify. It's not my site and I'm not affiliated with it, so it's not a "vanity" site, nor do I believe that it violates any of the other provisions. You're going to have to do better than "read this." You're going to have to explain why it, specifically, violates those provisions.

As to your second question, did you bother to read what's on the site before rendering a judgment? I find it rather odd that anyone can read the site and still wonder what it might have to do with inerrancy. WarriorScribe 20:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I see it's been removed again and, curiously, there's a note that there needs to be a case for inclusion in the article. Interesting. So a case has to be made for inclusion but not for removal (and, in fact, a removal that violated the site's "3 Revert Rule").

K - My responses await your perusal and commentary, at your convenience. I don't know if I'll do any more tonight, so take your time. I just got hooked on Civilization III, and I'm about to declare war on the Chinese. WarriorScribe 03:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear KHMO3, I don't know whether you want to get involved but I am having trouble on Abortion, as others constantly are removing valid information, e.g. in this edit. Could you please have a look. Cheers, Str1977 21:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your voice would be appreciated, whether you agree or disagree with me. I could use a diffrent voice to discuss with and it will likley increase my sanity level.--Tznkai 17:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Wesleyan theology wasn't considered evangelical in American religio-speak?--Tznkai 18:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wesleyan theology is evangelical. It has been so since the inception of conetmporary evangelicalism, about a century ago. Now, hyper-Calvinists deny that Wesleyanism is evangelical, but that doesn't change reality. In fact, a good way to spot a hyper-Calvinist is to see whether or not they consider Wesleyan thought (or Arminianism) evangelical. I don't really care much for hyper-Calvinism, obviously, and while I do affirm Calvinism as a "subset" of evangelicalism, I don't consider hyper-Calvinists evangelical...heck, they're barely Christian, in my view. Hope this helps...I'm happy to talk more about it. KHM03 18:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, KHM03. I'm a little less busy now, as I've submitted the second assignment and have only one more in the near future. Thanks for your kind words on my talk page. Regarding the message you sent me before that (which I didn't have time to answer), you've probably noticed that the editor in question hasn't edited recently. In any case, I can't see that you acted inappropriately in any way. He was warned, civilly, about 3RR, which he continued to violate, and it was obvious that you didn't intend the block or triumph over it! I've added Born again to my watchlist, anyway, so I should see it if things get heated again! AnnH ^(talk) 20:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting me in my RFA. --TimPope 13:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, KHM03, that I have to contact you again but there's something brewing on Christianity, as exemplified in this edit: [1]. Currently, I reverted it again, but he will certainly return to reintroduce "fact". So please keep an eye on it. Cheers, Str1977 10:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duty-faith currently on afd - is this worth keeping, or covered elsewhere? Looks more like your department than mine. --Doc ^ask? 20:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might be the case, though the mass of recent comments currently exceeds my brain functions. And I am still not happy with the "mystery" plot. I see that Wesley was involved recently - do you still see through these discussions?

As far as these IPs - do they claim to be different people? If not, I don't think there's anything we can complain about, at least not wiki-legally, though signing up or identifying as one would be kind. Of course, if they have claimed non-identity ...

Str1977 11:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a problem if they used different IPs to get round 3RR. I think, though I'm a bit lost on the talk page with the huge number of new messages, that one of them did claim not to be the same as one of the others. In any case, I had the same suspicion, and I checked http://ws.arin.net/whois and http://www.ripe.net/whois. There are others, for other parts of the world. They can be found at the bottom of the ARIN page (e.g. AfriNIC, APNIC, etc.).

It's complicated trying to track IP numbers, and my brother knows a lot more about it than I do. I sometimes found that when I looked up something in ARIN, I got an answer leading to Amsterdam, so I assumed, incorrectly, that the user was in Amsterdam. My brother told me that ARIN was just directing me to RIPE, which was based in Amsterdam, as ARIN recognized the address as European, and was therefore telling me that I should look it up in RIPE, not in ARIN: it wasn't telling me that the user was in Amsterdam, or even in The Netherlands. Sometimes, ARIN simply doesn't recognize a European address at all, so doesn't refer me to RIPE.

Anyway, I typed 69.107.7.138 into ARIN (I always try there first) and got an error message. I typed 194.145.131.156 into ARIN, and was directed to RIPE. I typed it into RIPE, and got Dublin, Ireland. (Okay, I promise it's not me!) 64.121.40.153, when checked in ARIN, gave a result of Princeton, NJ. I think they could be two people, but not one. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 11:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, having seen your last message to Str1977, concerning Early Christianity, I just wonder how you manage to find all these articles. I started editing Wikipedia at Terri Schiavo, and then moved to Pope Benedict XVI, because I had the brains to be able to type them into the search box. I found other articles, like Immaculate Conception and Abortion also by typing the title into the search box. Other articles were mentioned on talk pages, or were brought to my attention by other Wikipedians. Then I found a few by "stalking" my friends. (Hope you don't mind, Str!) In other words, I'd occasionally look at Special Contribs, to see if someone who had been helpful to me in some article dispute was online, and I'd see a new article and think, "Oh, that looks interesting". But you seem to be aware of the existence of articles that I'd never have even thought of looking for. And many of them would be of interest to me. Any tips? AnnH ^(talk) 12:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to add a Current Discrimination by Christians page, because there is a lot going on in the US at the moment with this. Could you get a response to me. Thanks. Lionheart Omega 00:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right about Discrimination against Christians. But information on this shouldn't be hard to find. This mostly happens in Muslim Nations and China. Though finding information on the Chinese portion could be harder to find. Lionheart Omega 02:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that sounded discriminatory towards Muslims. Lionheart Omega 02:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you warned User:220.233.65.105 on his talk page, he has been making personal attacks towards you and me. Can you help here? — Moe ε 16:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, KHM03. If you're around at the moment, you might take a look at this, which is clearly in response to this. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 12:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to review WP:CIVIL#Examples. You might also want to take greater care in who you advise to read what. You are a new user, only beginning to edit this year as I see. I am an old hand, this being my third year of volunteership on the wiki. One thing you might know about me if you knew me a bit better is that I am often accused of taking rules too seriously here. I certainly am better versed in them than the average user or admin (perhaps even arbiter ;)

Regarding Talk:Jesus#Jesus_answered_Pilate_vaguely_when_asked_if_he_was_King_of_the_Jews, I did not intend a nuclear incident over this. I found your interjections confusing and unhelpful, and described them as succinctly as I could. inane. I ment no personal offense, and I apologise if you felt I was critiquing you as a person. I was not.

I was instead attempting to focus on the issue at hand rather than the personalities. Do you perhaps have a history of tension with user:Kujoe? Is there some special reason you would prefer not to have these particulars discussed? IMO they are directly relevant to the article and an area in which it is lacking, namely a discussion of the basis for his execution at roman hands, and the similar "messianic" figures who strove to incite rebellion in the same era. Sam Spade 15:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object strenuously to this mockery of a civility warning. Keith has been a contributor here for a long time, and I have never observed anything anywhere near incivility from him. You, however, do not have the best reputation for being civil and cooperative with others. I strongly encourage you to consider very carefully who you "warn" against incivility, and "remove the plank from your own eye before attempting to remove the speck from your brother's eye." If not, you may find yourself on the receiving end of a disruption block. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 17:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly never meant to offend (at Talk:Jesus) and simply wanted to know the purpose of the thread. I have no history at all with User:Kujoe; I have been editing for about a year. My questions on the talk page were posted to find out what the user meant. That's it. KHM03 18:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you took offense at what I said, and I wish I had chosen my words better. I'm still not sure how I could have explained to you how you were coming across more politely, nor why you took such offense at "inane", but thats not really the issue.

What is at issue now is the outlandish reaction of your friend here, who has threatened both blocking and an arbcom case over the matter. I consider that a disruptive escalation of a fairly mundane incident, and would ask that you take some time to reflect, and then discuss things with him in a manner so as to provide perspective. I for my part will step back, and try to allow things to cool down. Again, I apologise for any slight interpreted from either my comment on Talk:Jesus, or my discussions here. Let us all keep WWJD in mind. Sam Spade 13:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essjay hasn't acted inappropriately at all. I think your tone was (and remains) troubling. As one of the finest administrators on Wikipedia, he takes this kind of thing quite seriously (and he should). I'm happy to forget about all this and move on; just please watch your tone in the future...and it wouldn't hurt to review WP:CIV. Thanks...KHM03 18:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. As I don't have CheckUser facility, I can't tell if a registered user is editing from the same account as another registered user. This seesm to indicate that User-multi error: "64.121.40.153" is not a valid project or language code (help). is the same as Giovanni33, although he seemed to be denying it here. I think it's safe to say that BelindaGong was User-multi error: "38.114.145.148" is not a valid project or language code (help)., and has now registered. Checking here (by just entering the IP address and clicking on "Search"), I got Princeton NJ for 64.121.40.153, and Washington DC for 38.114.145.148. It is a bit problematic if Giovanni33 is editing under an IP address some of the time, and under his user name other times. (Of course, anyone can find himself logged out without intending it.) And now we have TheShriek as well. The IP address I got an error message for a few days ago – User-multi error: "69.107.7.138" is not a valid project or language code (help). – is registered in San Francisco CA. Hope that helps. AnnH ^(talk) 15:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on the different IP's and apparent geographic locations. It wouldn't be hard for someone to use a proxy service located somewhere else on the net to connect to wikipedia from what looked like a very different IP. Doesn't take vast technical skills, just googling for an anonymizing or other type of proxy. Of course if someone did have more tech skills, there are more ways they could come from different ip's, or perhaps even spoof their real ip. So seeing the IP's appear to be from different geo locations doesn't mean that much one way or the other. Wesley 05:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (network admin by day)[reply]

Sorry. Thanks for your edits, though I am still not completely satisfied with the "three divisions" passage. Str1977 20:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things poeple wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, and your support! Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I ran across an Orthodox appreciation of Methodist spirituality recently, the link for which I will forward to you. On a personal note, Deacon Kevin Smith, mentioned in the article, spent a significant amount of time as a teenager here in the Columbia SC area; his father, Fr. Peter Smith, was the Rector of Holy Apostles OCA Church in the West Columbia for about ten years. He is now Dean of this region for the Diocese of the South and Rector of St. Mary of Egypt in Atlanta. Thanks again! --Midnite Critic 03:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link. I live in a fairly strong Methodist area and we have a lot of former Methodists in our parish, who in many ways value Methodist spirituality as much or more as when they were in the Methodist church. My priest would have been I think the fourth generation of Methodist preachers in his family, had he not converted first. I don't mean to sound triumphalistic or anything; I'm just glad the conference took place and that that those leaders are talking to each other. There 's also a series of conferences going on between North American Orthodox bishops and North American Roman Catholic bishops, talking about things like what the filioque clause really means. May God show us all His loving mercy. Wesley 05:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. My father, too, was very Wesleyan in his orientation. Keith, I found two articles on this site you may appreciate. How Methodists Honor Their Saints

and:

Holy Ann Preston

Overall, I am very impressed with this site. Beside the theological and pastoral (different things?) erudition, they also say nice things about the Oriental Orthodox and don't sneer when mentioning "independent" or "non-canonical" jurisdictions such as the one with which I am affiliated. --Midnite Critic 07:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good time was had by all. One of the participants remarked to me how constructive a discussion it was, and there were no food fights in the refectory. JHCC (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear KHMO3

Nice to see your talk page and I was pleased for your contribution and comments especially Christinity articles with musical interests. I am Burmese Christian from Kachin at South East Asia. Now living in Singapore. Adoniram_Judson is great evangeligal for Burma.

Since, you are ordained Elder, reading your articles is fruitful of spiritual benifit.

Thanks Uzawaung 06:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 23:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute on the Jesus article is over this section, recently added by pookster and removed by others Paul B 18:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC):[reply]

Jesus and Anti-Semitism

Ironically (given Jesus's Jewish identity, and profession of love), for many the legacy of Jesus was a long history of Christian anti-Semitism. Prior to the Edict of Tolerance by the Roman Emperor Constantine, Jewish culture was generally reviled within the Roman Empire for a variety of reasons. The Jews had rejected Hellenistic culture and retained their native religion and culture, which the Romans found to be nothing more than supersition (see Hanukkah; also, Tacitus, The Histories, 5.8). However, the Jews remained a political force within the city of Rome, serving as publicani, or tax-collectors, and being an important faction within the Populares, the political faction of Julius Caesar. Because of this, Caesar had granted the Jews special rights, namely the right to maintain their own culture and abstain from participation in Roman religious rights. With the adoption of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine, Roman culture underwent a vast change, namely the redressing of Hellenism with Christian themes and symbolism. The Jewish community was presented as the main enemy of this new system; not only had they rejected Hellenism in the past, they had rejected Christ and Christianity as well, and had in fact been responsible for the "murder" of Jesus. Jesus was presented as having Western European features, namely straight light-brown hair, blue eyes, and light colored skin, in order to distance him from the Jewish community and Christ's own Jewish background. As time passed, anti-Semitism became a mainstay of Christianity, and in the Middle Ages almost all Christian kingdoms passed laws restricting the freedom of Jews.

In the wake of the Holocaust many Christian groups have gone to considerable lengths to reconcile with Jews and to promote inter-faith dialogue and mutual respect. Today there is a strong movement within several communities to reinterpret the physical appearance and characteristics of Jesus to be more in line with the appearance of individuals from the Middle East (see Race of Jesus). (posted here by User:Paul Barlow, Jan 28 2006)

Alan Moore has been selected as the comics collab of the month. Please stop by and see what you can contribute! ike9898 02:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You just removed a link from Eucharistic theologies contrasted - this is part of a linkspoam campaign. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment on the Jesus talk page. To what I wrote there, I want to add this: I encourage you to add more content on the positive legacy of Jesus. You allude to it in your comment on my talk page. If what I wrote about Jesus' legacy seems disproportionate, I think the solution is not to cut what I wrote but to add more about the positive legacy. Certainly, that would be appropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies: I did not mean to suggest thaat you cut anything, and last I looked nothing was cut. But others had deleted the whole section in the past - when I mentioned deleting I really was making a general point not at all directed to you personally. I do think that as more positive elements are added to the section (including accounts of Christian stands against anti-Semitism and anti-Semites) we will achieve the balance we both value, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]