1223:- very wikipedian infact - let the reader know what POV the writer has as this will inevitably affect what they have written. Look at the fun and games we have deciding on the levels of proof required or the acceptability of someones academic background - all coloured by POV - the writers we are arguing over are themselves no different. If you have any experience of academia I'm sure you'll recognise the parallels. This is not casting them as bad academics - just human. Even experimental and theoretical scientific ideas fall out of favour only to be ressurected because some new experiment has shown previous explanations to be based on incorrect or incomplete assumptions. At least science is forward looking and self correcting rather than retrospective and self enforcing (one of my main problems with accepting the dogmas of the churches). Agnosticism is not humble - it is intellectually dishonest in my view - either you know something or you don't. To say "I don't know what I can know" invalidates any rational thought at all.
1759:
school affiliated with the
Methodist Church. Bain is still held up as an example for her sacrifices for the good of higher education and the church. If you were raised in the Methodist faith in Ohio up until the late 1960s, Bain's sacrifices to the church were held up as an example to follow (although they never delved into the politicals of it). So to call this woman simply a Methodist is to degrade her acts were as inconsquential as dropping a dollar in the collection plate on Sunday.
848:
was just a misunderstanding. I would just hate to see constructive discussions cut short just because we are all tired of an extended unconstructive conversation. So, misunderstanding aside, I think we agree on the larger issue. Anyway, I do appreciate your contacting me, but even when I misunderstood your note, I wasn't taking it personally because I know you do not to the best of my knowledge ever make these debates personal.
1571:
Christian apologists have sometimes been critical of him because of these limitations. For these reasons, his high reputation as an apologist is very limited to those who already agree with him. This is why I called that view "odd and highly partisan"; because it's so revealing. Anyhow, while I might not agree with that POV, it's not vandalism and I didn't remove it. It's just helpful in understanding the man behind the mask.
466:
voting twice, for example, or violating 3RR. We'll see if they engage in multiple voting or in revert wars like their predecessors! By the way, I'm not completely comfortable with someone having put a sockpuppet notice on TheShriek's user page, since I don't think there's any evidence of abuse. I'm sending a message to SOPHIA about it, and I might post something on
1227:
rethink everything which I would do. To just go along with it all in case I'm wrong (as has been suggested to me many times) is intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind. If god is what he is described by the christians to be, he would know my reasons and condem me for them. I always say that if I am wrong then I hope I get "brownie points" for being honest.
1148:
pray for a miracle, but do not expect one. We might make some progress with the historicity paragraph if we all stop butting our heads together. Are we humans, or are we rams? That's not a criticism of you, but rather of the ongoing debate. I'll ask you the same question I asked CTSWynekan: which circle of Hell is reserved for eternal ineffectual voting?
907:. I finished the Classical Arminianism section and would like your thoughts. I also want to give you the chance to write the section on Wesleyan Methodism because my understanding of that isn't very strong. Or, if you'd rather, you can give me a list of bullet points to address, I'll do the research, write it, and have you proof-read it. Enjoy, --
1698:
POV flags. As a pnemonic device I put a few POV flags on some of the atheist scholars to see how they like it. When there are scholars laboring desperately to render articles NPOV they should not be flagged. I find that I am possibly in fervent opposition to the atheists, but I have to oppose them with respect and having all my ducks in line.
1685:
articles are NPOV. Looking at your user page I see that you and I have something in common. We are both ordained clergy. I remember another pastor telling me that this world is like the world just before the
Reformation, but I think that the world today is like the time of the first century, pagan and unbelieving. Your fellow WP ed,
1758:
Bain was not simply a follower of the M.E. church, she was a person who literally gave up her chosen hapiness for the what she believed was the good of the church. Her donations to what is now Ohio
Wesleyan University afforded generations of women to have a place to live while they were attending a
1218:
I appreciate the point you are trying to make - I completely agree that I cannot say that the supernatural does not exists - all we can ever reliably comment on is the knowledge we personally have at anyone time - all else is hearsay. Everything we say is POV as that is all we really have. I probably
631:
Yes, I know. I'm sorry that SOPHIA is upset, though, as she did nothing wrong. She seems to think that
Giovanni and socks got into trouble because of his/their POV, rather than because of his/their shabby behaviour. I could swallow the husband and wife thing, if it weren't for the elaborate pretence
59:
Would you assist it keeping this paragraph pinned in place and the footnote stuck to it long enough to discuss it on the talk page? I'm more than annoyed by this editor who stays away from the talk page while careful discussion results in a comprimise, only to have him sweep it away because he thinks
1697:
I think that I have done harm in simply dismissing
Giovanni and Robsteadman, who are a Jesus-Myth scholars, out of hand. I was unaware that there are reputable people who are questioning our Lord's existence as an historical person. Just ignoring them will only introduce the return the stigma of the
1180:
Well, if you remember when Rob first came on the scene, both I and
Slrubenstein tried to engage Rob on Athiesm vs Theism as a philosophies, and Rob simply refused to participate. I tried my best and found it unproductive to continue the discussion. It took me a while to understand that when Rob says
1015:
status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on
Knowledge (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to
847:
I appreciate your note, but really, there is no need to apologize. I left a brief note on the talk:Jesus page, but perhaps it was so short that it came off as curt or petulant - if that is the case it is I who have to apologize. I misunderstood your initial comment because of its placement, but it
816:
I haven't been quite as active the last few days... Real Life(tm) has been intruding. It looks like
Sasquatch deleted John1838's user page because of how it was being used. That's certainly one option. Other possible steps in the dispute resolution process are the requests for mediation and Requests
578:
Just so you get it straight from the horses mouth - I am married to TheShriek. He doesn't have as much time to edit as I do as he runs his own company which is a pretty good thing as he's much more in the Rob camp than I am - needless to say we don't always agree at home so we were not playing games
316:
Hi. I got your email. The 3RR rule is not about who is right, it merely gives a time out in an edit war, trying to force the 3RR violators to discuss their dispute on the talk page instead of fighting an edit war. I do not prefer one version over the other, hence I have blocked both of you. You may
1684:
Thank you for removing the flag. I think that there should be a policy regarding these flags 1) that they only be put on by identified editors and 2) that those that put them on have the burden of proving that they are justified. I think that you have always gone the extra mile to insure that these
1490:
20-24) Edit war to blank my comments on his Talk page. Note that, in his comments, he calls me an "atheist loser". Twice. Gotta love that civility. I won't even comment on how he jumped to the conclusion that I'm an atheist. I guess that anyone who doesn't love Jesus as much as he does must be
1226:
I have always said if I had the personal evidence of St Thomas or St Paul I would be a
Christian. I am an atheist at this moment as I have no knowledge of the divine. I am always open minded and do not assume I have all the answers. New information (i.e. supernatural experience) will mean I have to
1147:
Nice try, but I feel that Rob's too different from us to meaningfully discuss religion or even
Athiesm. That's why I've decided to disengage with him on that point. To a Lutheran like myself, faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit, so in the end it's not up to us, but up to God. You know what they say:
533:
I've added a section to the talk page to see if we can get a consensus on what the paragraph should say. If enough of us then are satisfied, we can avoid endless debates with proponents of one view or another, revert with a polite reference to the discussion and be done with it. Everyone is invited
1308:
Why does a summary of scriptural, protestant objections to the catholic dogma not pass muster? If it is seen as biased, then a catholic rebuttal can be added. The style isnt great at the moment, but its a work in progress. Why not recomend additions as opposed to deletions. Im new to wikipedia. In
861:
Re:Rob Well, some may be putting Rob's worldview on trial, but then Rob has essentially put religion on trial and rejected it. Hence the discussion has unfortunately become polarized. My analysis is meant as an attempt to better understand him and find another way to communicate with him, though I
1715:
Right, they might just be friends. After all, when Rob (Steadman) objected to what he perceived as the Christian cabal stuffing the ballot box, Rob was told that he, too, could bring in outside votes if he so wished. From my limited time on Knowledge, it looks like accusations of sockpuppetry are
1422:
1) Very suspiciously, Raisinman's very first edit was to remove an external link to a site that's critical of Jason Gastrich. This is clearly deserving of a revert, though I didn't consider it intentional vandalism at the time. Of course, it's entirely consistent for a sock puppet of Jason's to
1403:
I'm not going to remove those notices from his talk page unless I hear from you, because I feel sure there's something more to this than I'm aware of. Besides, I trust you. :-) But if you get a chance, perhaps you'd take a look at his contributions, and see if you really think that accusations of
1230:
As a scientist I am used to having to explain everything from first principles referencing all assumptions made. I appreciate that this technique applied to someones beliefs may seem aggressive or as an attempt to pull it to pieces. It is not meant to be - just an attempt to put a jigsaw together
518:
Hi. Unfortunately, album covers can't be used on user pages, as they too constitute "fair use" images. You can use public domain, uncopyrighted, etc. images on your user page - check the image page for any images you'd like to use, and look at the terms of the licensing to check that they are not
268:
As I had done earlier, I stopped reverting at three, believing that going beyond that would violate Knowledge policy. My understanding was that since there was editing going on between the reverting, and since I was reverting to the newer version, I was not violating policy. If I have violated,
1570:
reputation as an apologist. My POV is that he excelled at preaching to the choir, but was incapable of speaking persuasively to non-Christians. For example, his trilemma is founded on assumptions shared by Christians, hence entirely ineffective outside of those circles. In fact, professional
1395:
I remember some time ago, a new admin posted warnings to user's talk page. The user kept removing them, and the admin blocked him for 3RR. His block was undone by Kelly Martin from the arbitrtation committee, who ticked him off in what I found an unnecessarily humiliating way. Then David Gerard
465:
I'm personally not in favour of putting suspected sockpuppet templates on user pages based simply on similarity of POV and support given on talk pages. There was a huge backlog of RFCU requests, but I think it's beginning to clear now. A request should only be made if there's evidence of abuse,
666:(I was about to say "hey dude" but then I realized I didn't know what gender you were) Thanks for the wiki welcome and comments about reformed arminianism. I haven't had a chance to look at the governmental atonement links you sent...hopefully I will be able to at some point. I also just added
150:
Hi, you might like to have a look at the images on your userpage. Some, specifically the album ones are tagged in their image pages as being used on wikipedia under 'fair use' law. Knowledge's application/interpretation of copyright law means 'fair use' images should only be used in articles
1293:
Why do you want to delete the article. I believe that i wrote it with an NPOV, if you disagree, explain to me how, or edit it to NPOV. If you believe it contains original research (i dont), tell me exactly which parts and i will provide sources. If you have another objection put it in the
1181:
he utterly rejects faith, he means it quite literally—but he holds very strong convictions. Any violations of WP:CIV and other policies should be held quite separately from that. Remember what you yourself said: let's not make this look like an inquisition. Or a cabal, for that matter.
1520:, one of Knowledge's most bizarre and creepiest articles, IMHO. On the talk page there, and in edit summaries, he was often seen "atheist bashing". Kdbuffalo (Ken) may be much better behaved nowadays, so I don't want to jump to conclusions. Ann is 100% correct in that we never
1620:
As I said on CTSWynekan's talk page, these are the souls that try men's times. Which is only to point out the fallacy in blaming the people rather than the process. Two sides? My own political philosophy is that there are greater than or equal to three sides to every story. ;)
1170:
to not know very much about the issues. I was hoping that if he could recognize what these belief systems were really all about, he might be more friendly, less likely to violate policy, and become a more fruitful editor. Perhaps I was incorrect, but it seemed worth a try.
865:
We all have value judgements that do not lend themselves to rational analysis. Rob has some rather strong values, as do several others, hence the conflict. I believe true NPOV will leave such value judgements out of the discussion, as far as is humanly possible.
932:
article. I don't want this to be swept under the carpet. This is something that requires action. I support your position wholeheartedly except for the keeping of the neutrality flag, but I would be amenable to the majority on even that. Kindest regards,
869:
Rob has violated policy, others may have as well. Storm Rider, I and perhaps others have encouraged Rob to change his tactics. CTSWyekan has encouraged all of us to consider our tactics. We all need to do this, and really I am trying, though I find it
632:
he/they set up of having no connection to each other, even in the messages he/they sent to each other. I have removed the sockpuppet allegation from the history of SOPHIA's husband's page, by deleting the page and then restoring just the last version.
1070:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on
964:
You seem to have a healthy amount of knowledge on Christianity, would you be interested in sharing this knowledge on the below forums at all? We could do with an informed opinion on certain matters relating to Jesus' teachings and early Christianity.
1197:, but have found it wise simply to acknowledge Rob's stance and move on. This is too much like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin--it makes no sense if you have no concept of "angel" or "pin" beyond the language construct. (My
1454:
9-13) He continues debating about Jesus, coincidentally remembering to use the four tildes, just as an experienced user might. In all these posts, he shows extremely strong bias in favor of the traditional Christian view, with an American fundie
987:
Just a reminder: do not respond to Rob at all if he repeats old arguments or gets abusive. If he changes a consensus paragraph, revert it. Keep track of your reverts and only do it twice. If we co this, nothing will come of it except frustration.
1101:
I still haven't written anything about Wesley, either from a historical or doctrinal perspective. I'm going to do that in the next few days, but I figured I'd leave it open for you as long as possible (since you're a methodist, and I'm not)
434:
Thanks, I had not seen that. I guess I'm honored to be included; beyond expressing an opinion I haven't really had a chance to dig into the subject yet. My impression was that this disagreement was spill-over from a similar dispute at
916:
1231:
saying where all the pieces were found. If we take this approach to the article then we do the best job - we present all the information and give the reader all the links to verify or follow up for more information if they choose.
296:
to the 3RR board. KHM03 was very careful to state that he had made his last edit for the day to not violate 3RR. The revert war could have gone on all night, but it only stopped because KHM03 stopped it, not because Williamo1 did.
788:
to help brainstorm a good outline, write up one section at a time, attribute correct sources and citations, and proof-read for Knowledge compatibility before posting. If you're interested, head over there are add your thoughts.
1676:
479:
to put a "suspected sockpuppet" template on any newcomer's page unless there's a high degree of probability. However, I know that many Wikipedians, including some administrators that I respect a lot, disagree with me on that.
404:
words! I'm still a bit flattened, as I had to make up work time today, which I had cancelled at the weekend. But if you need me for anything, just let me know. It's good to be back. And I got a barnstar in my absence. Cheers.
234:
When he finally added somewhat sourced content, it was WAY over the line in terms of NPOV policy. At that point, I edited his section, reducing it in size and eliminating the POV issues, but I did not simply revert or remove
718:
on Rob Steadman's talk page concerning the recent war that has transpired. I do ask that you do not edit or add to / add comment to this material for the sake of clarity and conciseness. You are free to leave any comments on
687:
I want to take a moment to applaud your efforts in the recent trials concerning Rob. I have a great feeling that this gentleman is dead set on causing all the problems he can in Christian world (I haven't seen him active on
579:
if our posts seem inconsistent. Whatever the christian view of the wife as a chattel of the husband - I have my own opinions and voice my views without reference to him (and vice versa) so we can viewed as separate editors.
1392:? (They were the only two edits he had made at that stage.) Also, he has been accused of vandalism, and I can't see any examples of vandalism. That word is not supposed to be used for POV edits, even very misguided ones.
1497:
And that's what he's done so far. Looks to me like he's not a brand new user and is definitely a vandal. As for being a sockpuppet, there's sufficient support for this accusation to justify running a checkuser on him.
1511:
I agree; we should have him checked, although it won't necessarily prove anything. The reason I suspected Kdbuffalo was the he was involved on the Inerrancy page for a while doing the same kind of thing, and has had a
1376:
so that I can open them in separate windows and see them side by side, and I see what edits he had made at the stage that he was given each warning, I just don't think that there was justification for the accusations.
619:, but later said on the Christianity talk page that he didn't know what a meatpuppet was. Anyway, if you're still around, you might gather some evidence. It's quite late in Ireland, and I'd like to go to bed soon.
77:) to the hyper-calvinism page is no more or less POV than your taking it out. It is based on 40 years of experience and personal research among numerous groupw of evangelicals in the USA, Briton and Canada.
1333:
I've also put this up for peer review. I'd like to work towards featured status. I'm don't know many other users who would find this article up their alley - if you know of any, could you let them know?
1432:
3) After I cleaned these two things up (but before I noticed the full nastiness of his external redirect), I left a reasonably polite note on his Talk page. His response is to immediately blank it.
1487:
is a classic work in Christian apologetics. This is an odd and highly partisan view, which says a lot about him. As I'm not a regular editor there and it wasn't clear vandalism, I let it stay.
1559:, so I'm not sure that his behavior is much improved. And the latter... well, he's not going to change. There's also some reason to suspect any of the more extreme pro-Jesus partisans from
1066:
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "
1689:
937:
1517:
317:
also edit your talk page freely, this option is left open intentionally to allow discussion of blocks if needed. I count at least four reverts which you yourself have titled reverts (
1429:. This is nasty vandalism, especially since a user clicking on it might not immediately notice that they've left Knowledge and entered the twisted mirror world of a partisan Wiki.
238:
Subsequent to that, Williamo1 reverted my changes to his newer POV version. At that point, I reverted three times not to the "original" version but to the newer edited version...
945:
I gave a list of Prof. Price's credentials, not Carrier's that I remember. But the link to his review of Doherty's book, does have his credentials on the top. that link is here:
448:
1555:
As for the identity of Raisinman, I can see a case for either Kdbuffalo or Jason. The former just recently erased the entire "Criticisms of Christian apologetics" section on
1158:
Funny about the circle of hell thing. Seriously, though, it just seems to me that the bulk of Rob's conversations on the various talk pages not only violate WP rules such as
1494:
25-28) Back on Jesus, he writes more comments in defense of historicity, with an impolite comment about the undue influence of extreme atheists (none of whom are identified).
737:
Hi, Keith. I'm sure you see David Schroder's recent additions to the Calvinist/Arminianism page. Could you comment on how you think we can best integrate his contributions
272:
Additionally, I would ask two questions: Am I permitted to edit my talk page and user page while the block is in order, and may I place this correspondence on my talk page.
54:
1274:
Close enough that I got my point across. KHM03 did say "point taken" on my talk page. Besides, I've been waiting for quite a while to use that phrase...in any language.
173:
Hi. I have blocked both you and Williamo1 for 24 hours for a 3RR on Hyper-Calvinism. Please adress the problem on the talk page instead of a revert war. For details see
459:
785:
87:
1636:
He's Ken, not Jason. The give-away is that kdbuffalo has mentioned writing articles on that Creationism Wiki that Raisinman redirected to. I'm at 90% confidence.
1729:
We stick with what we've got now until someone comes up with a better idea. It'll be important for those of us who don't like it to stay away from edit wars.
1755:
I have reverted your removal of the catagory "Methodism" from Mary Monnett Bain, and I feel that my point is valid in keeping her included in that catagory.
1349:
Hi, KHM03. I don't like to jump in, as there may be some background knowledge on this issue which I don't have, but I'm a bit concerned at the haste at which
64:
974:
96:
1766:
the United Methodist Church, to sacrifice for the cause of spreading Methodism, and see how this woman gave of herself to the church throughout her life.
1007:
999:
638:
505:
486:
423:
911:
1524:
Raisinman properly, so I think we're guilty of that. But...it's quite likely that he's a sock, probably of Jason Gastrich. Not sure how to proceed.
898:
724:
697:
600:
1338:
155:). Sorry to be a pain, but sooner or later some admin might come, rip them from your user page, and shout at you. I thought you'd like a heads-up. --
93:
1435:
4) He really liked the trick of externally linking to Morris' page on CreationWiki, so he reverts my fix with the misleading message "link to bio".
1123:
470:
also. Though for some reason, I've been having difficulty opening Knowledge pages today and yesterday, and have had to abandon editing a few times.
293:
80:
550:
544:
1640:
1582:
1502:
1702:
1313:
1071:
951:
553:
looks completley inappropriate to me. It is essentially nothing more than an attack page, and the editor himself has almost no useful edits.
1327:
1137:
1091:
806:
793:
202:
As I look over the edit history at Hyper-Calvinism, I see that I reverted three times to one version without the new section by Willam01...
1298:
443:
1128:
977:
341:
115:
1219:
have more time for Rob than most because he may not say it very eloquently sometimes but all he is saying is present all the arguments
892:
453:
Hi, I'm leaving the house in a few moments, so no time to send you a proper message. Please see my message on Str's talk page. Thanks.
174:
1278:
1261:
1248:
1244:
Es difĂcil comunicarse cuando usted no habla la misma lengua. Now imagine what that sounds like to someone who doesn't know Spanish ;)
904:
411:
375:
358:
279:
1742:
1733:
1625:
1607:
1595:
sides just seem to want to take incivility and silliness to a new level. I've backed off a bit for now from that article (hey, it's
1528:
1205:
1188:
1175:
301:
132:
1667:
329:). Hence this violated the 3RR rule, as the edits of Williamo1 were not outright vandalism. Details of the 3RR rule can be found at
1541:
1438:
5) At this point, I notice what he's up to and write a more pointed message on his Talk page. He blanks it with "removed rubbish".
1303:
567:
1357:
was inappropriate, but I'm wondering how appropriate it was to make those warnings and sockpuppet accusations in the first place.
727:
1318:
1152:
768:
429:
523:
1419:
If you don't mind, I'm going to comment here so that we can all discuss it. I've looked at all of his edits and analyzed them:
667:
1086:
677:
185:
142:
Hi there - please could you do a fellow U2 fan a favour and stick up your 'I'm a U2 fan' userbox in with the rest on the page
1591:
I understand that, and it's too bad. I think that most of the folks involved with that article mean well, but one or two on
1288:
1067:
884:
that includes a verse near the one you quoted (although I prefer NIV). Politically, though, I believe that there has to be a
513:
1019:
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use
607:
says that "Proven sock puppets may be permanently blocked if used to cast double votes." Belinda and Giovanni both voted on
1238:
992:
1552:
That's partially my fault: I need to learn how to use the right templates. There's something to be said for formalities.
1426:
2) Then he replaces an internal Wikilink to Henry Morris with a stealth external link to that same entry on CreationWiki
1413:
1389:
1770:
1046:
756:
745:
738:
1142:
959:
538:
1162:(which usually seems to happen when he's got no evidence and runs out of things to say/contribute), but demonstrate a
856:
49:
700:
625:
163:
123:
596:
388:
Hi, thanks for the welcome. I've just finished a very intensive study weekend, and have my head full of things like
1723:
1466:
1396:
posted something on one of the admin noticeboards, saying that if someone removes something from his talk page, we
776:
Based on some discussion, I feel like it'd be (1) clearer, (2) more accurate, and (3) more accessible to merge the
763:
1354:
1234:
Archola does have a very good point. Just because we say the same words does not mean we speak the same language.
583:
557:
1400:
that he has seen it, so there is absolutely no purpose in repeatedly putting it back except to hassle that user.
1364:
1096:
874:
837:
799:
705:
1646:
Until there is a checkuser result, let's not take this any further. Remember SOPHIA, and Deskana for beginners.
1380:
Concerning the removal of warnings from his talk page, yes, that may be bad form, but isn't it bad form to send
715:
1653:
1050:
997:
653:
383:
168:
327:
324:
322:
320:
318:
75:
1385:
1040:
821:
1184:
I did, however, have some interesting discussions with SOPIA on philosophy (and Carl Sagan and C.S. Lewis).
946:
1213:
732:
1574:
Back to Raisinman, I just have to say that his involvement has increased my disgust with the goings-on in
330:
45:
Sorry, I didn't mean to revert your change. It was a mistake. I agree that "some" is better than "many."
1473:. This suggests that he's a protestant, which is consistent with the idea that he's an American fundie.
1451:
and votes to remove all mention that Jesus' historicity is questioned by some. How many new users vote?
1408:
636:
623:
503:
484:
457:
421:
409:
1053:
for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as
1750:
802:. See the discussion there...it will be ongoing until the page gets finished, checked, and approved.
612:
982:
658:
1198:
750:
608:
269:
therefore, it was unintentional, and I certainly apologize, and I ask for a lifting of the block.
1381:
1370:
928:
concerning your helpful and NPOV addition to the second sentence of the second paragraph of the
1778:
853:
1719:
Right now, it looks like the vote at Talk:Jesus is going to be pretty evenly split. What then?
499:, to say nothing of the anon who reverted just after Kecik had made his third revert. (Sigh.)
1556:
1405:
1194:
1057:
720:
633:
620:
543:
528:
500:
481:
454:
418:
406:
215:
159:
258:
251:
244:
221:
208:
1710:
1353:
has had vandal warnings and sockpuppet notices placed on his talk page. I fully agree that
777:
573:
401:
333:. Again, this is not against you personally, but merely stops an edit war. Best wishes, --
40:
8:
1738:
Amen. Edit wars are a path to the Dark Side (see my Star Wars allegory on my user page).
1563:, given the participation in voting. Rather than guess, let's see what checkuser yields.
1427:
1335:
1324:
1310:
1295:
1120:
908:
881:
803:
790:
674:
143:
1537:
pretty much considered a classic of apologetics, though it's also much more than that.
1033:. If you believe the image qualifies under Knowledge's fair use guidelines, please read
599:
and give an update on what has been happening? Also no harm to add a little information
1082:
1034:
842:
826:
682:
496:
372:
338:
182:
137:
1344:
849:
835:
440:
129:
1699:
1686:
1650:
1477:
934:
917:
Concerning your eminently NPOV addition to the second sentence of paragraph two of
880:
I am trying to be careful, although I realize the danger. I've also collected some
436:
156:
1134:
989:
948:
811:
644:
535:
61:
46:
28:
17:
1309:
future, should i prepare complete articles before submitting them to judgement?
1350:
1078:
1016:
the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
885:
649:
How did you create those Userboxes? I would like to put some on my userpage.
616:
615:. Interesting also that Freethinker said on his talkpage, that he had reviewed
604:
519:
fair use image. Hope that helps - let me know if you're still unsure. Regards,
110:
and as being a possible sockpuppet of User:192.135.227.163 and User:Kdbuffalo.)
1447:
8) In a clear sign of sockpuppetry, he jumps right into the ongoing debate on
1444:
7) He goes back and once again deletes the external link that knocks Gastrich.
1470:
1159:
1023:
650:
588:
397:
368:
334:
196:
178:
152:
107:
1404:
vandalism and sockpuppetry against a brand new user were warrented. Cheers.
1767:
1739:
1720:
1678:
1637:
1622:
1579:
1499:
1459:
1275:
1245:
1202:
1185:
1149:
889:
871:
832:
589:
467:
389:
298:
831:
I don't see what you mean, but I guess you needn't bother. Thanks anyway.
151:(basically where the're being used for educational purposes; it is all at
1647:
1258:
1235:
1011:. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the
818:
781:
580:
563:
The editor hasn't been back in a couple of days. For now I'd ignore it.
216:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hyper-Calvinism&oldid=39095117}
259:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hyper-Calvinism&oldid=39138105
252:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hyper-Calvinism&oldid=39121861
245:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hyper-Calvinism&oldid=39120056
222:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hyper-Calvinism&oldid=39106933
209:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hyper-Calvinism&oldid=38925870
1762:
Before removing her again, I hope you will reflect on what it means to
1730:
1664:
1604:
1538:
1525:
1172:
925:
711:
564:
554:
355:
289:
276:
112:
1458:
14) Then he spreads his wings and unilaterally removes a POV tag from
231:...while encouraging him to add sourced, NPOV content (on talk pages).
1012:
760:
742:
1677:
Thank you for removing the red flag over the Persecution section in
354:
I disagree with and don't like the decision, but will abide by it.
693:
520:
393:
1716:
thrown around far too easily. Of course, I don't know KDBuffalo.
1323:
Just a heads up. Check out the new place, I think you'll like it.
1115:
categories, languages, external links, and other last-minute stuff
888:. Only God can judge absolutely, the rest of us are relativists ;)
417:
No, I hadn't seen it. Interesting. Thanks for pointing it out :-)
968:
689:
1575:
1560:
1448:
929:
918:
1596:
1166:
misunderstanding of theism and atheism...almost as if he's
1030:
670:
article you'd probably enjoy reading. Took me long enough.
862:
admit that I am too involved to be truly dispassionate.
326:) and another one where you removed (reverted) content (
449:
You might be interested in a message I left for Str1977
1081:. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner:
784:
article. To help accomplish this, I've created a page
1384:
to a brand new user who has done nothing worse than
905:
User:David_Schroder/Arminianism#Wesleyan_Arminianism
275:Thanks for your help; I hope this can be resolved.
92:Not in violation of 3RR rule did individual edits
757:Talk:Total_depravity#.22Arminian.22_and_depravity
106:(Note: User was reported for severe violation of
88:Not in violation of 3RR rule did individual edits
69:
714:conflict, I would humbly request that you view
199:-- I'm writing to contest the block I received.
1599:...I'm backing off a bit from the whole Wiki-
1483:17-19) He inserts the idea that C.S. Lewis'
1109:citations for theology / comparison sections
924:Hello, KHM03, I have added a motion on the
899:Want your thoughts on Wesleyan Arminianism
55:Jesus Article "scholars generally hold..."
1476:16) He makes a GOOD, if minor, change on
1193:PS: I actually agree with your stance on
175:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
400:and worse. It has increased my love for
1047:Knowledge:Image copyright tags#Fair_use
439:. I'll watch the mediation page. Best,
128:I'm glad you liked it. I was bored. :)
14:
710:Because you have been involved in the
668:Conditional Preservation of the Saints
1092:Close to finishing Arminianism update
1480:. How many new users fix wikilinks?
1257:That wasn't quite what I meant :-)
1221:but attribute them to known sources
1129:Fast One being pulled on Jesus talk
1045:or one of the other tags listed at
23:
24:
1792:
1518:Biblical scientific foreknowledge
1467:Criticism of the Catholic Church
1441:6) I revert, he counter-reverts.
1304:Re Catholic Bible Contradictions
367:I appreciate that. Thank you --
60:the scholarly majority crazy. --
1319:Update to Arminianism completed
1097:User:David_Schroder/Arminianism
1077:This is an automated notice by
800:User:David_Schroder/Arminianism
769:Revision of Arminianism article
723:if you so desire. Thank you. --
475:Anyway, my preference would be
430:Mediation on Early Christianity
1533:PS - Alienus...the Lewis book
1133:Quorum call. Come and vote. --
1051:Knowledge:Image copyright tags
13:
1:
1339:16:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
1328:04:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
1314:23:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
1299:23:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
1289:Catholic Bible Contradictions
1279:23:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
1262:23:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
1249:23:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
1239:21:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
1206:20:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
1189:20:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
1176:19:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
1153:19:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
1138:00:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
1124:21:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
1087:11:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
1037:, and then use a tag such as
993:20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
978:14:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
952:12:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
938:00:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
912:17:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
893:19:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
875:19:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
857:15:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
838:02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
822:20:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
807:19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
794:18:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
764:15:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
746:18:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
728:00:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
701:05:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
696:). Keep up the good fight! --
678:04:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
654:18:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
639:12:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
626:03:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
584:00:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
568:23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
558:22:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
539:14:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
524:14:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
514:Fair use images on user pages
506:23:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
487:22:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
460:13:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
444:23:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
424:23:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
412:22:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
376:17:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
359:16:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
342:14:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
302:13:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
280:11:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
186:09:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
164:02:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
133:00:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
116:20:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
97:20:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
65:01:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
1777:(Note: response is found at
1661:I don't plan on pursuing it
1566:As for Lewis, he has a very
1072:criteria for speedy deletion
755:Another question for you at
50:20:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
36:9 Feb 06 through 2 March 06.
7:
331:Knowledge:Three-revert rule
10:
1797:
1143:Rob re:Personal suggestion
960:Thanks for the kind words.
780:article into the original
1771:20:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
1743:19:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
1734:18:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
1724:18:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
1703:16:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
1690:16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
1668:21:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
1654:21:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
1641:19:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1626:18:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1608:18:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1583:18:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1542:18:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1529:18:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1503:16:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
1414:12:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
613:Talk:Historicity of Jesus
124:Thanks for the compliment
1119:I'd love your thoughts,
1029:to release it under the
74:My addition (see here -
1199:symbolic interactionism
786:Arminianism (temporary)
706:Please take a moment...
609:Talk:Transubstantiation
192:Email sent to Chris 73:
1779:Talk:Mary Monnett Bain
1360:When I right click on
384:Thanks for the welcome
169:3RR on Hyper-Calvinism
27:This is ARCHIVE 8 for
1557:Christian apologetics
1371:His talk page history
1201:class is showing...)
1195:faith and rationality
1005:Thanks for uploading
817:For Comments. Peace,
1469:, he adds a link to
1214:I think therefore...
1041:Non-free fair use in
798:I moved the page to
778:Reformed Arminianism
733:Reformed Arminianism
595:Have you time to go
673:That's all for now
144:User:RichardHarrold
1008:Image:Beatles7.jpg
1000:Image:Beatles7.jpg
497:User:Freethinker99
1751:Mary Monnett Bain
1485:Mere Christianity
1365:His contributions
1355:this edit summary
603:. Also note that
161:
1788:
1478:Orthodoxy (book)
1068:my contributions
1062:
1056:
1044:
1028:
1022:
983:When Rob is Back
969:SPIRITUAL FORUMS
739:on his talk page
659:Arminian comrade
495:And now we have
437:Byzantine empire
160:
1796:
1795:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1753:
1713:
1682:
1347:
1321:
1306:
1291:
1216:
1145:
1131:
1112:further reading
1094:
1060:
1054:
1043:|article name}}
1038:
1026:
1020:
1003:
985:
962:
922:
901:
845:
829:
814:
771:
753:
751:Total depravity
735:
725:Avery W. Krouse
708:
698:Avery W. Krouse
685:
661:
647:
593:
576:
548:
531:
516:
451:
432:
386:
171:
140:
126:
99:Anonymous user
90:
72:
57:
43:
22:
21:
20:
18:User talk:KHM03
12:
11:
5:
1794:
1784:
1783:
1752:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1712:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1681:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1644:
1643:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1586:
1585:
1572:
1564:
1553:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1506:
1505:
1495:
1492:
1488:
1481:
1474:
1463:
1456:
1452:
1445:
1442:
1439:
1436:
1433:
1430:
1424:
1420:
1374:
1373:
1368:
1346:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1336:David Schroder
1325:David Schroder
1320:
1317:
1311:Crippled Sloth
1305:
1302:
1296:Crippled Sloth
1290:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1252:
1251:
1215:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1191:
1182:
1144:
1141:
1130:
1127:
1121:David Schroder
1117:
1116:
1113:
1110:
1093:
1090:
1002:
996:
984:
981:
975:217.39.114.137
961:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
921:
915:
909:David Schroder
900:
897:
896:
895:
844:
841:
828:
825:
813:
810:
804:David Schroder
791:David Schroder
770:
767:
752:
749:
734:
731:
707:
704:
684:
681:
675:David Schroder
660:
657:
646:
643:
642:
641:
592:
587:
575:
572:
571:
570:
547:
542:
530:
527:
515:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
490:
489:
472:
471:
450:
447:
431:
428:
427:
426:
385:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
362:
361:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
307:
306:
305:
304:
288:I concur with
283:
282:
273:
270:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
255:
248:
236:
232:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
218:
212:
200:
194:
170:
167:
149:
139:
136:
125:
122:
121:
120:
119:
118:
89:
86:
71:
68:
56:
53:
42:
39:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1793:
1782:
1780:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1769:
1765:
1760:
1756:
1744:
1741:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1732:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1722:
1717:
1704:
1701:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1688:
1680:
1670:
1669:
1666:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1652:
1649:
1642:
1639:
1635:
1634:
1627:
1624:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1609:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1584:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1551:
1550:
1543:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1504:
1501:
1496:
1493:
1489:
1486:
1482:
1479:
1475:
1472:
1471:Protestantism
1468:
1464:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1450:
1446:
1443:
1440:
1437:
1434:
1431:
1428:
1425:
1421:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1412:
1411:
1407:
1401:
1399:
1393:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1378:
1372:
1369:
1366:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1358:
1356:
1352:
1340:
1337:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1326:
1316:
1315:
1312:
1301:
1300:
1297:
1280:
1277:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1263:
1260:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1250:
1247:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1237:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1222:
1207:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1190:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1174:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1151:
1140:
1139:
1136:
1126:
1125:
1122:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:To do still:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1089:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1075:
1073:
1069:
1064:
1059:
1052:
1048:
1042:
1036:
1032:
1025:
1017:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1001:
995:
994:
991:
980:
979:
976:
971:
970:
966:
953:
950:
947:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
936:
931:
927:
920:
914:
913:
910:
906:
894:
891:
887:
883:
879:
878:
877:
876:
873:
867:
863:
859:
858:
855:
851:
840:
839:
836:
834:
824:
823:
820:
809:
808:
805:
801:
796:
795:
792:
787:
783:
779:
774:
766:
765:
762:
758:
748:
747:
744:
740:
730:
729:
726:
722:
717:
713:
703:
702:
699:
695:
691:
680:
679:
676:
671:
669:
664:
656:
655:
652:
640:
637:
635:
630:
629:
628:
627:
624:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
591:
586:
585:
582:
569:
566:
562:
561:
560:
559:
556:
552:
551:User:John1838
546:
545:User:John1838
541:
540:
537:
529:Jesus Article
526:
525:
522:
507:
504:
502:
498:
494:
493:
492:
491:
488:
485:
483:
478:
474:
473:
469:
464:
463:
462:
461:
458:
456:
446:
445:
442:
438:
425:
422:
420:
416:
415:
414:
413:
410:
408:
403:
399:
398:phenomenology
395:
391:
377:
374:
370:
366:
365:
364:
363:
360:
357:
353:
352:
343:
340:
336:
332:
328:
325:
323:
321:
319:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
303:
300:
295:
292:. I reported
291:
287:
286:
285:
284:
281:
278:
274:
271:
267:
260:
256:
253:
249:
246:
242:
241:
240:
239:
237:
233:
230:
223:
219:
217:
213:
210:
206:
205:
204:
203:
201:
198:
195:
193:
190:
189:
188:
187:
184:
180:
176:
166:
165:
162:
158:
154:
147:
145:
135:
134:
131:
117:
114:
111:
109:
104:
103:
102:
101:
100:
98:
95:
85:
84:
82:
76:
67:
66:
63:
52:
51:
48:
38:
37:
33:
32:
30:
19:
1776:
1763:
1761:
1757:
1754:
1718:
1714:
1711::Robeaston99
1683:
1679:Christianity
1662:
1645:
1600:
1592:
1567:
1534:
1521:
1513:
1484:
1460:Christianity
1409:
1402:
1397:
1394:
1379:
1375:
1359:
1348:
1322:
1307:
1294:discussion.
1292:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1220:
1217:
1167:
1163:
1146:
1132:
1118:
1104:
1100:
1095:
1076:
1065:
1058:db-unksource
1018:
1006:
1004:
986:
972:
967:
963:
923:
902:
870:challenging.
868:
864:
860:
850:Slrubenstein
846:
830:
815:
797:
775:
772:
754:
741:? Thanks! --
736:
721:my talk page
716:this section
709:
686:
672:
665:
662:
648:
594:
577:
574:Sock puppets
549:
532:
517:
476:
452:
441:Tom Harrison
433:
390:epistemology
387:
191:
172:
148:
141:
130:Evil saltine
127:
105:
91:
78:
73:
58:
44:
41:Christianity
35:
34:
29:my talk page
26:
25:
1700:drboisclair
1687:drboisclair
1516:history at
1491:an infidel.
1423:start here.
935:drboisclair
903:Keith, see
782:Arminianism
534:to come. --
402:Anglo Saxon
79:(posted by
1740:Arch O. La
1721:Arch O. La
1663:at all'.
1623:Arch O. La
1276:Arch O. La
1246:Arch O. La
1203:Arch O. La
1186:Arch O. La
1164:tremendous
1150:Arch O. La
1135:CTSWyneken
990:CTSWyneken
949:Giovanni33
926:Talk:Jesus
890:Arch O. La
872:Arch O. La
843:talk:Jesus
827:Profanity?
712:Talk:Jesus
683:Rob debate
536:CTSWyneken
138:U2 userbox
94:199.29.6.2
83:10 Feb 06)
62:CTSWyneken
47:Giovanni33
1514:monstrous
1351:Raisinman
1345:Raisinman
1079:OrphanBot
1013:copyright
886:third way
773:Hey man,
294:Williamo1
81:Williamo1
1522:welcomed
1083:Carnildo
1035:fair use
694:Mohammed
651:KitHutch
394:ontology
369:Chris 73
335:Chris 73
197:Chris 73
179:Chris 73
1768:Stude62
1638:Alienus
1580:Alienus
1500:Alienus
1465:15) On
1455:flavor.
1049:. See
833:Str1977
812:Options
663:Hey -
645:Userbox
617:WP:SOCK
605:WP:SOCK
299:Lbbzman
1651:(talk)
1259:SOPHIA
1236:SOPHIA
1160:WP:CIV
882:advice
819:Wesley
690:Buddha
581:SOPHIA
565:Jayjg
555:Jayjg
153:WP:FUC
108:WP:3RR
1764:serve
1731:KHM03
1665:KHM03
1648:Gator
1605:KHM03
1601:thing
1576:Jesus
1568:mixed
1561:Jesus
1539:KHM03
1526:KHM03
1449:Jesus
1173:KHM03
1168:tried
930:Jesus
919:Jesus
590:WP:AN
468:WP:AN
356:KHM03
290:KHM03
277:KHM03
113:KHM03
16:<
1603:).
1597:Lent
1593:both
1406:AnnH
1398:know
1390:this
1388:and
1386:this
1382:this
1031:GFDL
1024:GFDL
998:Re:
854:Talk
761:Flex
759:. --
743:Flex
634:AnnH
621:AnnH
611:and
601:here
597:here
501:AnnH
482:AnnH
455:AnnH
419:AnnH
407:AnnH
373:Talk
339:Talk
183:Talk
31:....
1367:and
852:|
692:or
521:CLW
477:not
235:it.
177:--
157:Doc
70:POV
1578:.
1535:is
1085:.
1074:.
1063:.
1061:}}
1055:{{
1039:{{
1027:}}
1021:{{
988:--
973:--
396:,
392:,
371:|
337:|
261:).
181:|
146:.
1781:)
1462:.
1410:♫
257:(
254:)
250:(
247:)
243:(
224:)
220:(
214:(
211:)
207:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.