A.J.A.

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

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

   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)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): There has been some very intense abuse originating from this IP range, recently -- you had nothing to do with that, but unfortunately the IP addresses in here are very dynamic, so the only options are "block nothing" and "block everything." I've worked out a trial soft-blocking, provided that I'll be taking care of the damage that this unblock will probably cause. There's no perfect solution, here, but I didn't feel that sitting by and watching so many users blocked for things they had no part in would be appropriate. You should be able to edit, at this moment, but please do be wary of such blocks in the future -- I can't make any absolute promises, except that I'll do my best. Thank you for your time and patience. Best regards. Request handled by: Luna Santin 09:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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:

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter! Issue IV - April 2008 Monthly Challenge: Article News Go on over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. A lot is going on and your input is needed! Look over the recent changes list for recent improvements to articles, other changes and vandalism. Articles needing improvement can be found in Category:Christianity stubs. Twenty four articles are at FA level and Forty four are GA level articles. You can help by adopting a topic. Christianity Articles by Quality Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively. Christianity articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total FA 10 8 35 119 2 1 175 FL 1 14 20 35 FM 199 1 200 A 1 1 2 GA 22 16 194 429 29 690 B 205 235 787 2,107 310 151 3,795 C 348 799 2,285 6,423 2,330 455 12,640 Start 227 222 1,301 18,361 2 10,239 758 31,110 Stub 13 280 14,677 8,301 354 23,625 List 12 38 698 981 2 75 20 1,826 Category 2 4 9 21,023 1,316 22,354 Disambig 12 299 17 328 File 864 30 894 Portal 1 373 1 375 Project 175 11 186 Redirect 6 34 82 686 1,504 526 1 2,839 Template 2 6 11 2,012 109 2,140 NA 1 1 Other 2 129 131 Assessed 832 1,370 5,686 43,838 26,582 23,298 1,740 103,346 Unassessed 6 102 173 281 Total 832 1,370 5,686 43,844 26,582 23,400 1,913 103,627 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 360,777 Ω = 5.01 Project News WikiProject Christianity Coordinators : The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers, nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct.The Lead Coordinator bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project; the Assistant Coordinators aid the Lead Coordinator and focus on specific areas that require special attention. The nomination period for coordinators is currently ongoing at Election 2008 Nominations for open positions will be open through 23:59 (UTC) on April 30 and project members should vote for any candidates they support by April 11 2008. The election will be conducted using simple approval voting. Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the Lead Coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); the next four candidates will become Coordinators. Two new workgroups formed - Indian Christianity and Methodism Portal:Indian Christianity launched. Member News Our membership continues to expand. It is currently at 184 users. 86 new users have joined the WikiProject since last issue. Please make them feel welcomed! Archives of previous newsletters can be found here. To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, add your name here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, let ~ Tinucherian know. This newsletter is automatically delivered by GrooveBot.

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

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter! Issue V - May 2008 Article News 49 ( earlier 24) articles are at FA level and 94 (Earlier 44) are GA level articles. You can help by adopting a topic. Articles needing improvement can be found in Category:Christianity stubs. Project News Go on over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. A lot is going on and your input is needed! Look over the recent changes list for recent improvements to articles, other changes and vandalism. WikiProject Christianity Coordinators : The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers, nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct.The Lead Coordinator bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project; the Assistant Coordinators aid the Lead Coordinator and focus on specific areas that require special attention. The following Coordinators were elected after Elections 2008 Lead Coordinator : John Carter Assistant Coordinators : Tinucherian and Secisek Congratulations to the newly elected Project Coordinators. It has been proposed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbian Orthodox Church be merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. All opinions are welcome. One new workgroup was formed - Christianity in China Portal:Christianity in China was launched. Portal:Indian Christianity was renamed to Portal:Christianity in India Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity was renamed to Christianity in India Work Group There is also a discussion regarding whether any new subportals dealing with Christianity should be created here. All inputs are welcome. Bot Assisted Assessment was used for the unassessed project articles. Should you need any manual reassessment , kindly request it here. Member News Our membership continues to expand. It is currently at 223 users. 39 new users have joined the WikiProject in the month of April 2008. Please make them feel welcomed! Christianity Articles by Quality Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively. Christianity articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total FA 10 8 35 119 2 1 175 FL 1 14 20 35 FM 199 1 200 A 1 1 2 GA 22 16 194 429 29 690 B 205 235 787 2,107 310 151 3,795 C 348 799 2,285 6,423 2,330 455 12,640 Start 227 222 1,301 18,361 2 10,239 758 31,110 Stub 13 280 14,677 8,301 354 23,625 List 12 38 698 981 2 75 20 1,826 Category 2 4 9 21,023 1,316 22,354 Disambig 12 299 17 328 File 864 30 894 Portal 1 373 1 375 Project 175 11 186 Redirect 6 34 82 686 1,504 526 1 2,839 Template 2 6 11 2,012 109 2,140 NA 1 1 Other 2 129 131 Assessed 832 1,370 5,686 43,838 26,582 23,298 1,740 103,346 Unassessed 6 102 173 281 Total 832 1,370 5,686 43,844 26,582 23,400 1,913 103,627 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 360,777 Ω = 5.01 To do list of the Project Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Abundant Living Christian Fellowship; African Universal Church; Alpha and Omega Christian Church and Bible School; Altar Fellowship; American Catholic Church, Archdiocese of New York; American Christian Commission; American Missiology Society; American Mission for Opening Churches; Antiochan Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of Mexico; Apostolic Faith (Hawaii); Apostolic Faith (Kansas); Apostolic Faith Bible College; Asian-American Protestants; Assemblies of Yahweh (Michigan); Assembly of the Called Out Ones of Yah; Assembly of Yahvah (Alabama); Assembly of Yahvah (Oregon); Associated Churches of God; Association of Fundamental Gospel Churches; Association of Seventh Day Pentecostal Assemblies; Association of United Baptists (Green River, Kentucky); Banner Herald (Progressive); Baptist Missionary Association; Barefoot Ministries; Benjamin Fay Mills; Berean Bible Society; Bible Holiness Movement; Bible Protestant Church; California Evangelistic Association; Calvary Ministries, Inc.; Christian Holiness Association; Christian Identity Church (currently a redirect); Christian Millenial Church; Christianity and the American Revolution; Christ's Church (Mormon); Church of Antioch (Liberal Catholic); Church of Christ (Holiness); Church of Christian Liberty; Church of God Evangelistic Association; Church of God (Jerusalem Acres); Church of God of the Mountain Assembly; Church of God (Sanctified Church); Church of God (Seventh-Day, Salem, West Virginia); Church of God (World Headquarters); Church of the Bible Covenant; Church of the Living God (Christian Workers for Fellowship); Church of the Living God, the Pillar and Ground of Truth; Church of the Trinity (Invisible Ministry); Churches of God (Independent Holiness People); Community of the Love of Christ (Evangelical Catholic); Congregational Bible Church; Davis Swing; Defenders of the Faith (page currently is for a Judas Priest album); Deliverance Evangelical Centers; Divine Science Federation International; Edward Scribner Ames; Emmanuel Association; Emmanuel Holiness Church; Emmanuel's Fellowship; Evangelical Friends Alliance; Evangelical Friends Church, Eastern Region; Evangelical Mennonite Brethren Church; Evangelical Methodist Church of America; Evangelical Orthodox (Catholic) Church; Federation for Authentic Lutheranism; Federation of St. Thomas Christian Churches; Forked Deer Association (Regular); Frank Nathan Daniel Buckman; Free Church of Berkeley; Free Will Baptist Church of the Pentecostal Faith; Friends United Meeting - Western Yearly Meeting; Full Gospel Minister Association; Fundamental Fellowship; General Conference of the Evangelical Baptist Church; General Council of the Churches of God; Gospel Assemblies (Sowder); Gospel Mission Corps; Grace and Hope Mission; Grace Gospel Fellowship; Herbert Lockwood Willett; Holiness Christian Church (currently a redirect); Holiness Today; Holy Synod in Resistance; House of Prayer for All People; Hungarian Reformed Church; Independent Assemblies of God International; Independent Christian Churches International; International Evangelism Crusades; International Ministerial Fellowship; James Harvey Garrison; Jesus People Church; Johan Conrad Beissel; John William McGarvey; Kehukee (North Carolina) Association (Predesinarian); Kentucky Mountain Holiness Association; Ketocton (North Carolina) Association (Regulars); Last Day Messenger Assemblies; Liberal Catholic Church, Province of the United States; Liberty Fellowship; Lillenas; Maranatha Christian Churches; Mariavite Old Catholic Church - Province of North America; Megiddo Mission; Metropolitan Church Association; Mid-American Yearly Meeting; Midwest Congregational Christian Church; Miracles Experiences, Inc.; Mission Corp; Missionary Methodist Church; Mount Zion Sanctuary; National Association of Holiness Churches; National Council of Congregational Churches; National Holiness Association; Nazarene Compassionate Ministries; Nazarene Youth Conference; Nazarene Youth International; New Bethel Church of God in Christ; New Order of Glastonbury; North American Old Roman Catholic Church; Ohio Bible Church; Old Catholic Church (Hamel), Congregation of St. Paul; Old Catholic Church in America; Old Holy Catholic Church, Province of North America; Oriental Missionary Society Holiness Conference of North America; Orthodox Church of Canada - Orthodox Church of the New World (USA); Pacific Yearly Meeting; Pan African Orthodox Christian Church; Pentecostal Church of Zion; Pentecostal Fire-Baptized Holiness Church; Phoenix Institute (Church of Man); Prophetic Bible Conference of 1914; Prophetic Herald Ministry; Renaissance Church of Beauty; Rocky Mountain Yearly Meeting; Seventh Day Baptist General Conference; Seventh Day Church of God; Soldiers of the Cross of Christ; Sons Ahman Israel; Sucarnochee River (Mississippi) Association (Black); Sudat School Ministries; Syro-Chaldean Church of North America; Tayu Fellowship; True Church of Christ, Restored (Roberts); Union Association of Regular Baptist Churches; Union of Spiritual Communities of Christ; United Church of Jesus Christ (Apostolic); United Church of Religious Science (currently a redirect to a list); United Evangelical Churches; Universal Christian Spiritual Faith and Churches for All Nations (National David Spiritual Temple); Universal Industrial Church of the New World Comforter (One World Commune); Universal Peace Mission Movement; Upper Country Line (North Carolina) Association (Predestinarian); Walter Scott (Disciples of Christ); Wesleyan Tabernacle Association; Wesleyan Tabernacle Association of Churches; Youth in Mission; Cleanup : Christendom; Connexion; Crossley Hospital; Georgia District Church of the Nazarene; Holiness movement; Hyperdispensationalism; Lord's Day; Pablo Salazar Mendiguchia; Primitive Methodism; World Day of Prayer; Copyedit : All Saints Church, West Dulwich, Asia-Pacific Nazarene Theological Seminary; Blessed Virgin Mary; Christian mysticism in ancient Africa; Fresh Expressions; Nazarene Caravan; Sacraments of Initiation; Soul; The Gift of God; Expand : Apocalypticism; Christianity in the Middle East; Conservative Evangelicalism; History of Calvinism Merge : Atonement (governmental view); Christian Church; Christian perfection; Christianity by country; Eucharistic discipline; Oecumene; Open communion; Religions by country; Sinless perfection; NPOV : Bill Gothard; Christian Hebraist; Christian terrorism; List of Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions in North America; Mary Baker Eddy; Semi-Arianism Update : Calvinistic Methodists; Karl Ullmann Verify : Albert Outler; All Saints Church, West Dulwich; Antinomianism; Apocalypticism; Asbury College; Asia-Pacific Nazarene Theological Seminary; Awesome God; Catholic; Christendom; Christian; Christian counseling; Christian Science; Christian terrorism; Christianity in the Middle East; Christmas Conference (Methodism); Church; Church architecture; Connexion (religion); Darrel R. Falk; Deuteronomic Code;Evangelical Church (ECNA); Fresh Expressions; George Rapp; Georgia District Church of the Nazarene; Gideon B. Williamson; Historical Christianity; Hyperdispensationalism; Jacob Albright; James Dobson; John Humphrey Noyes; Justification (theology); List of churches in London; List of Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions in North America; Louis Agassiz; Manchester Higher Openshaw; Mary Baker Eddy; Methodism; Methodist Federation for Social Action; Nazarene Caravan; Nazarene International Education Association; Nazarene Publishing House; Nazarene Theological College, Manchester; O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing; Paradise Community Church; Paul Cunningham; Postdenominationalism; Predestination (Calvinism); Righteous indignation; Sacraments of Initiation; Samaritan Institute; Soul; The Bible in Spain; The Gift of God; Theotokos; William Clowes (Primitive Methodist); The Salvation Army in Manchester; Stone of Scone; William J. Prince; World Day of Prayer; Nazarene Missionaries; Other : Stanley Rader; Christian mysticism in ancient Africa; Consecration; NYUK; Phoebe Palmer; Sacrament; Sanctification; Seneca Falls Convention; Thomas Jay Oord; World Day of Prayer; Family Radio; Biblical hermeneutics; Second Council of Ephesus/Robber Synod; Archives of previous newsletters can be found here. To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, add your name here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, let ~ The Newsletter Editors know. This newsletter is automatically delivered by Addbot (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC) .

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)

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter Issue VIII - July 2008 Project news We now have 53 featured articles 6 featured lists, and 130 good articles, with the recent promotions of Thomas Cranmer to FA class, List of encyclicals of Pope John XXIII to FL status, and Hugh de Puiset to GA level. Thanks to all those who worked on these articles! Portal:Lutheranism has been created, and other portals are being discussed. Please feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. Member news The project currently has 239 members, 10 joined & 1 leavers since the start of June 2008. Other news Thomas S. Monson is currently a Good Article nominee. Related projects news New Projects and/or work groups have been proposed for Christian theology and Christian denomations. Christianity related news Former science director sues Texas over intelligent design e-mail Mormon church warns Wikileaks over documents From the Members Welcome to the Eighth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. As many of you will know, we currently have several articles relating to the same basic topics. The articles in the Category:Baptism are one example of such. It is really in the interests of all of us to try to place as much content in the main article of such topics, and then have the other articles "branch off" from there and making the central article as good an article as possible. We also now have a proposal for a new general "Christianity" related award, similar to the Military history project's chevrons, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. John Carter (talk), Lead Coordinator Newsletter challenge Last month's new article challenge, Church of Daniel's Band, was begun by User:Jack1956 and was included in the Main page's DYK section on June 15. Thank you to Jack1956 for his great work on creating this article! This month's article is Amended Christadelphians. To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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 refuses to apologize for his bizarre accusations that my (dictionary definition) use of a word is ignorant or self-interested or something. A simple admission here would go very far in establishing his good faith.

3) 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).

4) 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)

So now, instead of joining me on the talk page to work on the article, you are speaking to me in the third person, as if you are addressing the Greek chorus to the right of the stage? A.J.A. please look at your contributions to the talk page. You have not worked with any editor to improve the article. Instead, you have worked unilaterally, to enforce and implement your version against the objections of every other editor. Do you think your approach might need to be changed a bit? I am willing to hear your ojbections to specific material on the talk page. Please place your concerns there, as that is where we we work on things on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In order to join you on the Talk page of the article you would need to have posted there in the first place. Instead you posted here, and per your own request I have continued the discussion here. Some honesty, please. A.J.A. (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello? You originally added maintenance tags to Buddhism and Christianity with nothing posted on the talk page. Since you keep adding these tags back into the article, you are required to discuss them on talk. Please do so, and I will join you. Viriditas (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

From join me there to I will join you there. But you'll never admit the first statement was misleading. A.J.A. (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a look at the talk page? I am the last active editor to appear there. You are welcome to join me at any time with your concerns. Viriditas (talk)

That was over a month ago, and has nothing to do with the current discussion. Yet another misleading statement from Viriditas. (Note that I linked to that very comment earlier; he was trying to move discussion away from the article Talk after blindly reverting another editor, not me, who tried to shorten the article and remove the POV advocacy.) A.J.A. (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am active on the talk page, and I have active threads open on the talk page, active threads you are welcome to join. Please join me on the talk page, where I am already actively awaiting your reasoning for adding tags to the article. There is no current discussion because you have not yet started it. Do you understand? You are required to discuss your edits. I have discussed my edits on the talk page. I hope this helps clear up your confusion. Viriditas (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting "active" in italics doesn't compensate for not knowing what it means. If you haven't posted there in over a month, you're not active there. (Now I'll have to look up "active" in a dictionary so you can lie about that word, too.) The discussion isn't happening there because you started it here. If you want, I can move this whole thread to the place you're now insisting it should have been, as if I and not you had chosen its location. A.J.A. (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm the last active participant on the talk page, and I'm currently active there now, and there is at present an active thread awaiting your comments. Viriditas (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that he became active there after my last comment and was not active there when I posted it. Just so there's no confusion. A.J.A. (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking to your imaginary friend? I'm right here, hello, over here. Waiting for you on Talk:Buddhism and Christianity. Is there any reason you haven't shown up yet? I'm the only active editor on that talk page, and have been for quite some time. Viriditas (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently in your world 18 minutes counts as "quite some time". A.J.A. (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been the last active editor on the talk page for a month, and I'm waiting for you to join me on the talk page with your explanation and justification for tagging the article. In your absence, I've created a separate section for you to fill out at your leisure, so that we can get started improving the article. Looking forward to your participation... Viriditas (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In this discussion, you have hardly said a single thing that was not disingenuous, and you have a record there of reverting all efforts to improve that article. I do not believe you are willing to be a good faith collaborator. A.J.A. (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What part of "explain your justification for maintenance and dispute tags on the talk page and refrain from drive-by tagging" is giving you heartache? Viriditas (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not in a position to make imperious demands of others. Perhaps you could make a show of your own good faith by apologizing for your multiple personal attacks and your multiple misleading statements. A.J.A. (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am in a position to make the demand that you use the talk page instead of drive-by tagging, and I've shown that your claims in regards to the topic of prophets are not only without merit, but are 100% false.[5] Viriditas (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course you can say whatever you want, but you're not in a position to get any respect for your demands. I've addressed your newly cited source on your Talk, but suffice it to say that proving one usage exists does not refute other usages. A.J.A. (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You have not addressed anything at all, but you have merely spent hours distracting from the discussion. We do not evaluate non-Christian religions using Christian criteria. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's your new talking point, but it's too unrelated to anything said so far that I don't really even know what you're trying to say. A.J.A. (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me refresh your memory: You said that Buddha cannot be considered a prophet using common usage of the word and you claimed that Buddhism does not make use of "prophesy". Both of these claims are in error. Viriditas (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I never said "common usage". That's an ambiguous term. I said the primary meaning as opposed to a derivative meaning, and I said a -- not the -- standard usage, and backed it up with a citation. A.J.A. (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't use dictionaries as "citations" for topics. That's original research. You are, of course, welcome to find a reliable source that discusses the use of the word prophet in relation to Christianity and Buddhism. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

When the topic is the definition of a word, citing a dictionary is more or less the oppose of original research. I don't know what happened to your references to "the relevant literature, i.e. books, articles, studies, reports, etc.", (WP:SYN if I ever saw it). But we're talking about what I meant. The citation was simply there to establish that I'm not arbitrarily inventing a meaning afterward to invalidate your insult. Finding another lexically available meaning that doesn't make sense and insisting upon it because of the order the OED puts them in, or inventing something about evaluating Buddhism, doesn't make me wrong about my own meaning. Just give it up and move on already. A.J.A. (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The topic was and is Buddhism and Christianity, not your chosen definition of "prophet" which you use only to apply to Christian-related topics. This error has been explained to you. And the OED is far more authoritative than your weak link. You were wrong, and you can't admit it, and that's the entire story of your contribution history. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The topic is the fact that you chose to put baseless insults on my Talk page. I thought the problem was applying "my definition" to Buddhism; now somehow it's only applying it to Christianity. But hey, the OED mentions other possible meanings alongside the one I used, so maybe if you repeat it often enough it'll stick. A.J.A. (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

All you have to do is stick to the facts and stop trying to stuff the universe (or multiverse) into your small little, ideological box. Open your mind. Viriditas (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

I have requested your participation on the talk page. Please join me there. Viriditas (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on the Zionism page. The saga of inserting that text has been quite an education for me.

Telaviv1 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter Issue XI - August 2009 Project news The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 75 FAs, 8 FLs, and 147 GAs, with a net loss of one FA and one GA. Our thanks to those who helped keep some other articles listed, and to those who have worked so diligently in improving all of our articles. Member news Three new members joined this past month, including new members User:116Calvinist, User:Lrnngrbc, and User:Frazz, bringing us up to 295 listed members. Thanks to you all, and a special welcome to our new members! Other news Two new pages for the benefit of members of the project have been created. Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Mutual aid society is designed to be a place where editors seeking specific assistance from other members can with luck find others who have the abilities or materials they need, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Special collections is, at this point, the beginnings of a list of publicly accessible special collections libraries which our members might find useful. Anyone who lives near one of the collections listed is encouraged to visit them and see if they can find anything they would like to read or use to improve some of our articles. There are always some discussions regarding project related activities at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. I think the timing of the call for elections might have been bad (summer vacation, what was I thinking?), and have thus changed the period for individuals to run to be one of the project's coordinators. Individuals who have a particular interest or knowledge of specific fields within Christianity are encouraged to run, to serve as a kind of "unit coordinator" for that topic. Related projects news The WikiProject Films has recently created a new task force for Christian films. All interested parties are welcome to join and contribute. Christianity related news Pennsylvania Amish farmer jailed for outhouse violations Obama expands Bush's faith-based initiatives Relics of 39 saints found by British Museum From the Members Welcome to the Eleventh issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. One area in particular need of attention right now is the content related to the Oriental Orthodox churches. Several of the topics within this field are of great importance, including the churches themselves, their histories, thinking, and some of the individuals associated with it. Unfortunately, the number of people who belong to the churches, and, correspondingly, the number of editors working on that content, is smaller than it could be. Anyone interested in helping to develop this content is more than welcome to look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy page and seeing where they can help out. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC) To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 18:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The article currently titled "Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover" will soon change its name. An early straw poll narrowed the choices to six alternatives, listed at:Talk:Southern Baptist Convention Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover#Straw poll 2(once this thread is archived, see here.)

If you wish to rank the names suggested there, please do so soon. Please put other comments BELOW rather than interpersed among suggested names. Thanks. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Acharya S. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

ICHTHUS

December 2012

Membership report
The parent Christianity WikiProject currently has 350 active members. We would like to welcome our newest member, User:Harishrawat11. Thank you all for your interest in this effort. We would be able to achieve nothing here without the input of all of you. If any members, new or not, wish any assistance, they should feel free to leave a message at the Christianity noticeboard or with me or other individual editors to request it.

From the Editor
Ichthus is one of the ways that the WikiProject Christianity’s Outreach department helps update our members. This newsletter is one of the ways we do try to help people keep up with the project. We would always welcome any input for things to be included in it or additional editors to keep it going. Please let us know if there are changes you would like to see in the format, or if there are any particular things you would like to see included. And if you have anything you would personally like to add, by all means let us know. The talk page of the current issue is probably the best place to post such comments.

With that, I wish you all happy reading!

P.S. Please click here to add the new Christianity noticeboard to your watchlist to follow the latest discussions relevant to WikiProject Christianity and subprojects.

By John Carter

Church of the month

This image of The Baptistry of Saint John in Pisa by User:NotFromUtrecht

was recently promoted to Featured Image. Thank you and congratulations for the great image!

Contest of the month
As I imagine many of our editors will be editing at a greatly reduced level for the next few weeks, what with the Christmas and New Year's holidays coming, there is no specific content-related contest this month. The contest, if anything, is to make the most of the season, in whatever way, if any, you deem appropriate.

Calendar
This coming month (mid-December through mid-January) includes the Advent season, and one of the two greatest holidays of the Christian year, Christmas. Other major feasts in the next month include those of the Feast of the Epiphany, Baptism of the Lord, Saint Stephen, Thomas the Apostle, Holy Innocents, John the Evangelist, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil the Great, Saint Genevieve, Elizabeth Ann Seton, and Saint Sava.

Featured content and GA report
Since the last report, Anne Hutchinson nominated by User:Sarnold17 was promoted to FA. Grade I listed churches in Lancashire by User:Peter I. Vardy was promoted to Featured List. The image in the Church of the Month and Christian art sections of this newsletter were promoted to Featured Picture status. Come to the Well by User:Toa Nidhiki05 and others, and Dwight Christmas by User:Gen. Quon and others were promoted to GA level. DYKs featured this past month include King's Chapel, Gibraltar, by User:Prioryman, Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Albany, New York) by User:Daniel Case, Tingsted Church by User:Ipigott and User:Rosiestep, St. Mary's Church (Albany, New York) by User:Daniel Case, Stubbekøbing Church by User:Ipigott and User:Rosiestep, Notre Dame Cathedral (Phnom Penh) by User:Bloom6132, and St. James' Church, Cardington by User:Peter I. Vardy. Our profoundest thanks and congratulations to all those involved!

Christian art

The nave of the Parish Church of Urtijëi. This image was created by User:Moroderen. Thank you, Moroderen!

Spotlight

In the spirit of Christmas, the spotlight for the coming month might actually best be on those people closest to you. We know that a lot of our editors here are associated in some way or another with schools, and many if not most of them are going on rather extended breaks for the holidays. This can give some of us a chance to meet up with old friends, spend time with our families and those close to us, and, in a sense, "recharge" for the new year. So, for all of you who are in some way part of that group, we wish you the very best of holidays. We hope you all return to editing after the holidays with your spirits lifted and with your energies at peak level. There are some small matters in development here as well, and it is our hope that some of them will be ready come the next newsletter. But, until then, we wish you all the happiest and holiest (if appropriate) holidays.

---

Help requests
Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from a variety of other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
EdwardsBot (talk)

• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

ICHTHUS

January 2013

Membership report
The parent Christianity WikiProject currently has 354 active members. We would like to welcome our newest members, Alliereborn, Iselilja, Peterkp, and Sosthenes12. Thank you all for your interest in this effort. We would be able to achieve nothing here without the input of all of you. If any members, new or not, wish any assistance, they should feel free to leave a message at the Christianity noticeboard or with me or other individual editors to request it.

From the Editor
Ichthus is one of the ways that the WikiProject Christianity’s Outreach department helps update our members. This newsletter is one of the ways we do try to help people keep up with the project. We would always welcome any input for things to be included in it or additional editors to keep it going. Please let us know if there are changes you would like to see in the format, or if there are any particular things you would like to see included. And if you have anything you would personally like to add, by all means let us know. The talk page of the current issue is probably the best place to post such comments.

With that, I wish you all happy reading!

P.S. Please click here to add the new Christianity noticeboard to your watchlist to follow the latest discussions relevant to WikiProject Christianity and subprojects.

By John Carter

Church of the month

This image of Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Tallinn, Estonia by User:Poco a poco

was recently promoted to Featured Image. Thank you and congratulations for the great image!

Contest of the month
No particular contest this month. I am however getting rather close to getting together a more or less complete set of articles relating to different areas of Christianity which can be found in recent reference sources on the broad topic of Christianity, and about various subtopics, which I hope to have finished in the next few weeks. I wonder what the rest of you might think of, maybe, making the contests of future months be basically directed at filling in the gaps of our existing coverage of topics, like those topics given significant coverage in specialized reference works which we don't yet have content on, and giving the thanks, and rewards, whatever they might be, to those who create and develop such content. I am starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard#Future contests, and would very much welcome any input from interested parties in how to set it up, determine winners including how many winners, etc.

By John Carter

Featured content and GA report
Since the last report, the image in the "Church of the Month" section of this newsletter was promoted to Featured Image status.

Darzu ist erschienen der Sohn Gottes, BWV 40 by Gerda Arendt and others, Teuruarii IV by Lemurbaby, KAVEBEAR and others, and Peace on Earth (Casting Crowns album) by Toa Nidhiki05 and others, were all promoted to GA status.

Also this past month, the DYKs on the main page included St James' Church, Cardington by Peter I. Vardy, Bishop's Palace, Kraków by Poeticbent, Kippinge Church by Ipigott and Rosiestep, Trinitatis Church, also by Ipigott and Rosiestep, Steindamm Church by Olessi, St Laurence's Church, Church Stretton by Peter I. Vardy, Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Meteora, by Peter I. Vardy, Sonrise Church, by Aboutmovies, St. Peter's Episcopal Church (Albany, New York), by Daniel Case, All Saints Church, Claverley, by Peter I. Vardy, and Church of the Holy Virgin Mary of Lourdes, by Poeticbent. Our profoundest thanks and congratulations to all those involved!

Christian art

The Tower of Babel by Pieter Bruegel the Elder
This image was created by User:Dcoetzee. Thank you, Dcoetzee!

Spotlight

The Spotlight this month turns to the the Syriac Christianity work group. The scope of this project includes the various traditions of Syriac Christianity, including the Assyrian Church of the East, Ancient Church of the East, Church of the East, Syriac Orthodox Church, Chaldean Catholic Church, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, Melkite Greek Catholic Church, Syriac Catholic Church, Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, and Saint Thomas Christians. One of these groups, the Assyrian Church of the East, is considered by scholars to have probably been, for several hundred years, the largest Christian grouping in the planet, with its numerous members in Central Asia and Eastern Asia. Numerous texts, traditions, and practices unique to these groups exist, including the Jesus Sutras and the belief of the Assyrian Church of the East that the bread they use in the preparation of their Eucharist uses the same basic yeast as that used in the bread of the Last Supper itself. Sadly, given the linguistic barriers to much of the content relative to these groups, and the comparative lack of notoriety they have in the Western world, much of this content does receive less attenion, and thus less development, than much other content. There is a large amount of extremely valuable historical material here still waiting to be adequately developed by editors with an interest in the topic, and I personally very much hope that we can draw more attention to these topics, and the content related to them.

By John Carter

Calendar
This coming month (mid-January through mid-February) includes The Presentation of Christ in the Temple or Candlemas and the Conversion of Paul. Other major feasts in the next month include those of Saint Agnes, Saint Francis de Sales, Saints Timothy and Titus, Thomas Aquinas, John Bosco, Saint Agatha, Paul Miki, [{Saint Scholastica]], and Saint Anskar.

---

Help requests
Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from a variety of other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
EdwardsBot (talk)

• EdwardsBot (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

ICHTHUS

July 2013

From the Editor

Welcome to the July 2013 issue of Ichthus. We focus on the chronology of Jesus, as well as looking back at the project content improved over the last month.

WP:X has gained another Featured Article, Gospel of the Ebionites, by Ignocrates. The Gospel of the Ebionites is the name scholars give to an apocryphal gospel that supposedly belonged to a sect known as the Ebionites. It consists of seven short quotations discovered in a heresiology known as the Panarion, written by Epiphanius of Salamis, and its original title remains unknown. The text is a gospel harmony composed in Greek, and is believed to have been written during the middle of the 2nd century.

St Mihangel's Church, Llanfihangel yn Nhowyn was promoted to Good Article status, as was two other welsh churches, St Enghenedl's Church, Llanynghenedl, and St Peter's Church, Llanbedrgoch.

The main page also featured several DYK hooks for articles in our project, namely Bob Fu, List of places of worship in Tandridge (district), Catholic Press, Garendon Abbey, St. John's Episcopal Church (Jersey City, New Jersey), Pargev Martirosyan, Praskvica Monastery, Heather Preceptory, St. Augustin, Coburg, Longleat Priory, St Mihangel's Church, Llanfihangel yn Nhowyn, St Enghenedl's Church, Llanynghenedl, Christianization of Moravia, Christianization of Bohemia, Repton Abbey, St Peter's Church, Llanbedrgoch, Medingen Abbey, Elmhurst Christian Reformed Church, St. James on-the-Lines, and Leopold Karl von Kollonitsch.

Church of the month

St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery is part of Saint Sophia's Cathedral, Kiev in Ukraine. It is a functioning monastery that dates back to the Middle Ages.

Membership report
The parent Christianity WikiProject currently has 367 active members. We would like to welcome our newest members, Newchildrenofthealmighty, Evenssteven, Kerna96, and FutureTrillionaire. If any members, new or not, wish any assistance, they should feel free to leave a message at the Christianity noticeboard or with me or other individual editors to request it.

Focus on...

THE
HISTORICAL JESUS

When did Jesus live? When did he die? How do we know? We do, in fact, have excellent information about the time intervals for the life and death of Jesus. As in other people who lived and died in the first century, this gives an approximate date range, but still, give or take 3-4 years and we have pretty good estimates confirmed by a number of really diverse sources, ranging from inscriptions in Delphi to Roman and Jewish sources. The Chronology of Jesus article discusses how a wide variety of Christian, Jewish and Roman sources are used to establish the time-frame for the life and death of Jesus.

And all of his data fits together. For instance, the chronology of Paul had been discussed based on the Book of Acts long ago, then the Delphi Inscription is found in the 20th century in the Temple of Apollo. And guess what.. it confirms it and totally dates his trial in Corinth, which helps reaffirm the date of the crucifixion of Jesus. The same date range is independently estimated from the writings of Josephus on the Baptist's death. And it fits Isaac Newton's astronomical models for the crucifixion date as well as the independent lunar calculations of Humphreys. As that article shows, all these dates just fit together.

From the bookshelf

Chronos, kairos, Christos: nativity and chronological studies edited by J. Vardaman, E. M. Yamauchi 1989 ISBN 0-931464-50-1

This two volume book (with a very apt title) is gem-filled with scholarly research. Paul Maier's article in the first volume is a classic study on the chronology of Jesus and provides a useful summary of a number of issues.

Did you know...

• ... that the Russian journalist Nicolas Notovitch who in 1894 originated the story that there was evidence at the Hemis monastery that an adult Jesus had traveled to India, later confessed to fabricating his evidence?

Calendar
This month (July) contains the feast days of Mary Magdalene, and James, son of Zebedee.

---

Help requests
Please let us know if there are any particular areas, either individual articles or topics, which you believe would benefit from outside help from a variety of other editors. We will try to include such requests in future issues.

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity.
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe remove yourself from the list here

EdwardsBot (talk)21:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This issue was distributed on behalf of Gilderien, current editor of the Ichthus, at 21:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC). Comments and other feedback are always welcome at his talk page.

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)