User:Jim62sch/archive3

Politics

Then you might want to add yourself to User:Karmafist/Wikipedians'_Political_Perspectives - Guettarda 00:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks...as long as no one calls me an atheist hell-bent on ripping down the temple... :) Jim62sch 00:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Galicia

Recently WikiProject Galicia has been created. Perhaps you are interested in joining us to help improving Galicia articles at English Wikipedia. --Stoni^(talk) 14:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm off the week after Christmas (yes, a week off!) and I'd be happy to pitch in at that time. Very interesting topic, I must say. One thing, could you send me a reminder around the 24th (I'm kind of like the absent-minded professor). Thanks, and I look forward to getting started. Jim62sch 17:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Abadín

Is at User talk:Jim62sch/Sandbox.

To copy an article like this, first I started the Sandbox page, then (in a different window) I went to http://gl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abadín, selected "editar" (don't select "Versión para imprimir" because you won't get the WikiFormatting, even if you View Source), clicked in the middle of the edit window, selected all (ctrl-a on a Windows system and most Linux systems) copy (ctrl-c), tabbed over to the Sandbox I started, paste (ctrl-v) and voila.

You will have to do a little work besides translation. The templates don't exist on the English version (at least not by names given), Véxase tamén templates also, Category:Concellos galegos, and so on. Also the images must be copied. Let me know if you require further assistance (with the tables if you need it, but not with the translating!) KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hi Jim. I would like to wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year. Guettarda 17:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Benapgar

Hi Jim, I've blocked Ben for his recent personal attack on you, but this is just to let you know that personal comments of any kind are best avoided e.g. your saying he is a "smug, arrogant person." It's safer to comment on the content and behavior, rather than the person. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jim, I'll take your words under advisement. I'm not interested in wasting my time with bad people. Forgive my assumtions of the essential goodness in all Mankind. It's a flaw of my hippie upbringing. ;-) BTW, sounds like you and I have a lot in common. Feel free to email me, or to drop me a line if you ever feel the need to give me a heads up. Thanks.--ghost 20:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

From FM's Talk Page: Agreed. The point of the first two meaningful links were regarding the usage of Intelligent Design to refer to a school of product and software design. (Something I'm dealing with everyday.) The Mac, iMac and later the iPod are considered crowning achievements of that school of thought. There are/were several other usages as well, but as FM points out, they're quickly become buried in the debate over the politics of ID. *sigh* I told you I was a hopeless idealist, Jim... ;-) --ghost 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Re HP's "Intelligent Design": LOL. Yeah, I thought that was classic too. Proof that you can use Google to prove anything, no matter how stupid. Do you think this means that we could use the Kitzmiller ruling to go after HP's advertising as it is clearly unintelligent? Hmmmm..... *touches little finger to corner of mouth*--ghost 22:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Endomion's page. While I continue to agree to disagree with FM's positions on some things, Endomion's doesn't seem to be handling things well.--ghost 16:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Optimus learning the ropes

Sorry about taking the wind out of your sails. ;-) It's a gift. BTW, I put a note on his talk page.--ghost 16:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

ID Mediation request

Hi Marshill, Jim62sch and FeloniousMonk,

I notice that no mediator has yet responded to the request at WP:RFM/ID. Is there still a desire from the relevant parties to hold a mediation? If so, let me know, if not, I'll delete the request. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 22:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR and vandalism

3RR does not apply to vandalism, such as the removal of the notes which the anon just did, or adding nonsense such as "THIS SUCKS" or similar edits. Revert to your heart's content. 3RR is about content. Be careful about what you consider vandalism, but if it is clear vandalism, it does not count. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen that you speak romanian. Mult zgomot pentru nimic. Bonaparte talk 06:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A little, but writing it is rather difficult. I'm better at reading it, although I will admit that terms of non-IE origin give me some difficulty (thus I must use a dictionary). Jim62sch 10:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Black Sea deluge theory/replacing "science" by "non-deist science"

Thx for [1], I just added myself to Category:Rationalist_Wikipedians, as Marudubshinki did before. You might consider joining the club, we all need a little help from a friend, eventually. Cheers, --tickle me 23:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

IP test of res IP (Jim62sch)

Missing article

You made me realize that we don't have an article on Glaucon. Not on any of them, in fact. Feel like writing one? Algae 10:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Could be that prospective authors found it tricky to discern all the people who went by this name. I know I did. The guy from Plato's Republic is arguably the best known of the bunch, but in WP we also have a reference to a strategos Glaucon in Archons of Athens, and the reference in my previous comment lists a few more. Algae 11:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent plan. If people who blindly link to Glaucon end up on a disambig page, we can fix the links. This is a fairly common problem. Too many of these ancient Greek dudes share the same names. Even Plato is ambiguous as far as ancient Greeks go. Algae 18:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Need you to look over something

Hi,

I'm taking steps to lodge a formal complaint against User:Theodore7 due to various reasons that I'm sure that you are aware of, or have experienced by now. Right now I have a rough draft of the complaint that I would like to have some people look over, add to, correct, and sign if they agree with it. I've never had to do anything like this before, so if you would please take some time to take a look at it and give me some feedback, suggestions, support, etc., then I would really appreciate it. It can be found here: [2] Thank you. --Chris Brennan 06:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just found this myself - this should be interesting, to say the least. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add your 2 cents to it. --Chris Brennan 19:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

already did, thanks - I don't have much to add but endorsed and added a diff link to one endorse. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

English touch-ups

Yep, ah be shoor I ain't no pendantic perfesser. Me just thinque at an encyclopedier otter co-mand a lotta tension to de-tail. Carrionluggage 21:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know that about Pound - hard to believe that old Eliot's headpiece was stuffed with straw, too - but if you say so - OK. A suitemate of mine in college went to visit Pound in what was then called an insane asylum (today a mental hospital) and reported that Pound was quite rational but was feigning insanity to avoid prosecution. Carrionluggage 21:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Bullying

Thanks for the headup about the bullying thing. I'll watch with interest, but I don't want to get personally involved in Wikipolitics. Incidentally, while I can see that Ben has been a pain, I don't think FM's handling of him has displayed all those qualities of tact and diplomacy that might (might) have prevented things coming to this pass. PiCo 23:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about it as well. I agree with PiCo that the situation hasn't been handled with as much care as it could have been, and I'm sure that FM's comment will be cited by Ben as further evidence of bullying. However, I still find Ben's misinterpretation of the duties of an admin (and indeed, any regular editor) to form consensus and keep articles factually accurate, informative, and NPOV as "bullying" to be problematic enough to warrant signing the comment. Thanks also for your comment on my rebuttal of Ben on the ID talk page (regarding the definition). I'm glad you don't take his personal attacks seriously, but whenever I can I'll help anyway by jumping in and deflect any ad hominems with real logic. -Parallel or Together ? 02:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Rods, etc.

Could you possibly clarify what your concern is with the comment I made on Theo's talk page? It's a grammatical mess, I know, but I'm worried that you have some deeper concern with it. KrazyCaley 19:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

(Reponse to comments on my talk page): Understood. I know of his pro-astrology POV, but the information he has to offer in this arena seems pretty legitimate. I will indeed take care, though. Thanks for the concern. KrazyCaley 20:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your comments

I was going to let your comments stay on my talk page for awhile until you began attacking me. If you do it again, you'll be reported and I've dealt with people like you before and they will ban you for 24 hours. --Jason Gastrich 21:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment left on Jason'sd talk page (it'll no doubt be deleted)

Translation from Gastrese: I had no intelligent rebuttal, so I deleted your comments from my page, as I do all others that are challenging or critical, and if you criticize me again on my page, I'm tellin'! - WarriorScribe 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your sarcasm

Please don't expect me to speak to you on my user page. Your personal attacks and "sarcasm", as you call it, are unwanted. For someone like you, who has attacked me and done zero to encourage me or do anything positive in my eyes, your sudden attempt at sarcasm has been seen as offensive. In other words, leave me alone. I want nothing to do with you or your so-called brand of Christianity. Perhaps when the pain you've inflicted on me goes away, I will contact you and engage in some friendly sarcasm with you; since that's apparently what you want from me. --Jason Gastrich 00:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Heaven forefend I should touch the Great One's page, so, if he wanders back this way again he can read this: You're as much a Christian as my dog. Jim62sch 00:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

He is a fundamentalist so anyone who doesn't exactly agree with him is "not a real Christian." Though, I tell you, I was raised fundamentalist. Original, old line, "we founded the movement" fundamentalist. I don't recall it being quite so ego driven as he's taken it. It's not even just you must agree to the same doctrine or you're "damned." It's you must agree with him or you're "damned." Mark K. Bilbo 00:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think Jason is a fundamentalist since he believes he can speak in tongues and can receive visions outside of the Bible.

I do not approve of Jason's stalking and harassment of me in Usenet.

Inside view by Perfecto

Thank you. --Perfecto

Ignorance is Bliss

Jim, please don't take this the wrong way, but I really think I would appreciate not being informed of hopefully-you-know-who's shenanigans. I tend to take things too seriously and find it difficult to just laugh it off, unlike you. I think I have a pretty good sense of humour but unfortunately it does get strained easily by cases like this.

I think I prefer to be an ignorant but blissful coconut. Unfortunately, I think HYKW is ignorantly blissful as well.Lovecoconuts 05:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Re: this diff, in fact, evolution is not a theory. Natural selection is a theory, evolution is a desriptive conceptual container for the observation of (among other things) the transmutation of species and adaption. See Evolution#Distinctions_between_theory_and_fact, Talk:Charles_Darwin#Evolution_is_a_fact_and_a_theory & [4]. Mikkerpikker ... 11:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Projects

How are you coming along with User:Jim62sch/London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls

FYI, Lumiere (talk · contribs) and Light current (talk · contribs) have been assessed to be trolling in the content policy pages WP:V and WP:NPOV. The more we respond the more they disrupt. Please do not engage them. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

IC

Hello. You put in a remark about "IC" in a page on intelligent design, but I cannot find "IC" defined on that page, and also the link you added to the Chicago Tribune is not open to the public. Would appreciate your commenting (in the same place, probably) what IC is and perhaps a precis of what is on the Tribune link. Thanks Carrionluggage 02:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I usually do not register with various sources, to avoid spam etc. I get the NY Times, Financial Times and a few others. I will take your word that the Trib has torpedoed IC once more, but, of course it is immortal. Carrionluggage 04:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 10:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim - I'll do the puppetry, for sure. Mail is good, although some prefer to use WP talk for transparency. Your call. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

12:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

(re my talk page) Don't worry, I have Guy's user page on my watchlist and I've been spying on his mail :-). Sounds like you two have got it locked down, so I won't make any further contributions to the Evidence page unless either of you want me to or something new comes to my attention. --Malthusian (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I know you're a big contributor in the RfA on Jason Gastrich, and I had a small run in with him a while back. I believe it violates WP:POV, but on Dec. 21 2005 he labled all album of a specific band (Dream Theater) as Christian Rock albums when they are not Christian Rock. I have no idea why he did this, nor do I know if he's ever listened to Dream Theater. I don't know if this can help you in any way, but it's another instance of him Christianizing entries on Wikipedia. Drlecter491 22:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

First Family of the United States

Hey, someone redirected the entire First Family of the United States article into First Family. I just wanted to let you know, seeing as more people voted to keep it than to redirect. I'm reposting it. History21 16:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)History21

Email

Your email account is bouncing emails I send to you - error given is:

<<< 554-: (RLY:CH) http://postmaster.info.aol.com/errors/554rlych.html

<<< 554 TRANSACTION FAILED

554 5.0.0 Service unavailable

This is an issue with my email service, I think, and I will see what I can do about it.

KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

ID peer-review Issue

Hi Jim: Please don't allow anyone to be fooled by the assertion that "some" ID research has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Fact is NO ID research has been published in peer reviewed journals; all published articles to date are really grappling with the punctuated equilibrium and morphogenesis issues (the gaps in the fossil record). Not one uses the parameter "intelligent" or "intelligence" as Dembski tried to do and got rejected. No one will ever be able to cross the ID threshold unless the parameter "intelligence" is agreed upon. OF COURSE these studies HINT at intelligence-- that is the same argument that Heruclitus and Plato made 2500 years ago.

Nice try though. I'm going to lay low for awhile and see if the ID discussion is raised to another level of understanding. I appreciated our conversation...Kenosis 18:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope the last set of organizational edits helped the cause somewhat. No content edits, just organization and syntax stuff. Take care.Kenosis 08:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

different guy

No, I'm not that David Brooks. I wrote him a couple years ago and asked him to change his name, but he declined. That's why I included the middle initial in my wiki name. - DavidWBrooks 16:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

He did not respond; I image he gets a ton of email. I write for the Telegraph of Nashua. That fact was on my user page for three years, but after a recent and particularly stupid edit battle, the opponents started vandalizing the article about that paper and e-mailing me at work. (Could be worse: once before, somebody annoyed about an edit called one of my bosses!) So I gave up and removed that link, which is too bad. - DavidWBrooks 01:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Reconciliation

Hi Jim,

I hope you're well.

I'm writing a couple of Wiki users because I feel that I may have offended some people. I apologize if my past contributions made you upset. I see that you value making contributions to Wikipedia (although I don't agree with them) and that you have a passion for this place and getting your input into various entries.

The recent explosion in revert wars by "apparent Jason Gastrich sock puppets or impersonators" has not been my doing. Although I disagree with your viewpoint that a link to one of my web pages or a link that I agree with should be discussed on the talk page first, in fact I find this downright unfair and wrong, I haven't been contributing under the huge number of impersonators we have seen, lately.

Please consider reconciling with me. It could do us some good. I wish had something tangible to offer you, but I don't. All I can do is apologize for the past edits that were deemed inappropriate by you, although I still strongly disagree, and forgive you for the misdeeds I feel you have done. For what it's worth, I see this place as hostile to what I believe in, and even the truth in general, causing me to have serious reservations about even inviting others here and certainly about promoting this place in any way.

My most important goal is to glorify God and to lead others into a relationship with Him. I've been working hard and doing this online, although some may not see these efforts reflected on Wikipedia. Therefore, I need to go where I'm needed the most, because that is where the fruit is at.

Thanks for your consideration and God bless you.

Sincerely, Jason Gastrich 01:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Please don't be offended that I'm sending a similar message to a handful of others. I feel the same way and wanted to say the same thing to them, too.

criticism

Jim, I don't know why you thought that I thought that you were criticizing me. JoshuaZ 01:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem of induction

Thanks Jim. That was helpful; I noticed immediately...Kenosis 23:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Signature

I like your new sig—quite colorful! The yellow 62 is a bit hard to read, though. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that reversion...there was a new user trying to restore removed text, but also ended up breaking the wikification in the article. Thanks again. --HappyCamper 20:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for that reversion.

I'm a new user that was trying to revert to an old (gooder) version, but I ended up destroying the wikification of the article. Clearly need to RTFM. Sorry, mea culpa.

Wage labour

Hey, you expressed an interest in Wage labour some while ago. Someone thinks it should be merged with wage. Could you comment on Talk:Wage_labour#Suggestion_to_merge_this_with_wages? Thanks :) -- infinity0 17:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Bored

I'm stuck in Kuala Lumpur airport. I'm bored. Bored bored bored. There's this lounge with confy chairs and free internet and free coffee, and 3 hours to go before my connection. Is this heaven or is this hell? PiCo 00:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Encouragement

I have noticed that some people have been rude to you recently, and I'm sorry to see that. Whether you're right or wrong, there's no excuse for incivility. Keep your chin up! Sarah crane 15:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

i've notice this popping up all over the place. What key words set this off? David D. (Talk) 18:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Threads content

Talk:Threads contains remarks averring that much of that article is copyvio. As I look at the offsite page mentioned, I find that plausible; but I thought I'd have a word with you, since it looks like you're the contributor of the disputed material. If you do have permission to reuse that text, would you give us some indication of that? eritain 19:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Your reply received and read. Please see further discussion at Talk:Threads#Plagiarism. eritain 02:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment...

See House of Cards for the origin of this useful phrase :-) You may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

But i ' m t y p i n g a s s l ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow l y a s I

c

a

n? He still does not seem to get it. :-) David D. (Talk) 21:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Noah's Ark featured article candidate

Jim

I'm starting the process of putting up NA for FA. Spell-check away. Cheers PiCo 12:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Jim: I've put up the nomination. If you want to vote, go to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates and scroll down till you find the article link. Whether you support or object to the nomination, you need to explain your vote in terms of whether the article meets all the criteria for FA (to be found at the top of the page). PiCo 12:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Laurence Eusden

Thanks for all the work in beefing up the Laurence Eusden page. I have a few moments of unease about it as it stands now, though. It's absolutely true that Eusden was a poetaster. It's absolutely true that he would never be remembered at all if it weren't for Pope's attack on him. It's further true that he was mediocre at his best and unreadable most of the time. However, even with cited POV, we really ought not to say these things without internal cues to the citation. I.e. instead of saying, "He was a versifier, not a poet [NOTE]," it's probably better to say, "As one critic has said, he was a versifier, not a poet [Note]," just so we avoid the appearance of a dog pile on his battered bones. If you're still active on the article, I'll leave it to you. If you feel done with it, I think I'll go grab the new DNB to see if I can flesh out the biography some. After all, there were numerous wheedling, posterior-kissing poets at the time, so something had to set Eusden apart besides his verse (awful) or his politics (Whig). It was a score of years where the laureateship had been politicized (previous laureates weren't as objectionable, but then we have Colley Cibber (correct politics and contributions), Eusden, and others whose singular virtue was supporting the Whig cause, while other poets (John Gay, Alexander Pope, Edward Young, and even James Thomson) were better but Tory), so it'll be interesting to find what, exactly, he did politically to get himself above the others. I hope the DNB will have the information. I'll trust you to tame the apparent POV. (Again: I totally agree with the POV. Heck, everyone does. It's just that it is valuative.) Geogre 17:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm currently on a "dunces" kick (all the dunces of The Dunciad), and so I'm interested in the explanation for their placement in the poem. Colley Cibber, for example, has an excellent article that illustrates why he was laughed at as a laureate but establishes it in the context of a lifetime of getting famous without getting good. I'll see what I can find from DNB next week. (And Eusden did suck.) Geogre 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Love Your Latin

In the Beginning

Just dropped by to see who the new guy on the Jesus talk page was. I love your Latin. In fact, I've thought of putting the following on my office door: Nisi pluet, nunquam fluet. But I'd have to move too many cartoons.

On the current tempest over there; If you have the time or inclination, take a look at the last five archives there. Any suggestions as to how to bring the sides together without one of those evil votes? --CTSWyneken 02:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. While I am obviously a committed Christian, I'm looking for language that reflects the scholars. The evangelists, Christian and Atheist, need to find another forum to "talk" to each other.

The reason why we went to votes, which for me is a near last resort, is neither bunch is willing to chill. I don't expect it will make the losing side happy, but we'll gather enough folk to donate two reverts to keep it stable. --CTSWyneken 11:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been a little while since I've heard LCA. These days, it always has an "E" in front of it. I've got a friend who is a historian of ancient history, who says the differences between the gospels make him more sure they are authentic. 8-) If you'd like to get my take on the things you think do not add up, let me know. I love to talk about them. Who knows? I may find a new tool for your spiritual tool belt. --CTSWyneken 23:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I will do that. It may wait, now that Robsteadman has be blocked for using sockpuppets to -- you guessed -- stack the vote on a meaningless phrase on the Jesus page. *sigh* Also, my daughter is headed for speech sectionals this weekend. If you want to get it started, go ahead and outline what you think is impossible in Jesus and Pilate's conversation. As a librarian, I have quite a few tools on hand and can do some digging, if needed. 8-) --CTSWyneken 00:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Want to join my cabal -- I mean, going to Kabul? 8-) Seriously, I put down a marker on the Jesus talk page. Enough of the Stürm und Drang! --CTSWyneken 00:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know? ;-) Seriously, agnostics are often good company! After all, we say, "two Lutherans, three opinions!" --CTSWyneken 00:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Centrist Faction is born

Forgive me for interupting. if I can live with being associated with SOPHIA (A former Christian who became an Athiest), I can certainly live with being associated with an agnostic. It's about time we form a centrist faction (not a cabal) to try to bring everyone together. Those who butt heads are named for that action. Arch O. La 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Great! Perhaps we should ask SOPHIA to join as well. She and I have pretty much agreed to allow each other our differing subjectivities. I should warn you, though, that she considers agnosticism to be a form of intellectual dishonesty. Arch O. La

I see them as differing basic beliefs. I have made the invitation to SOPHIA. Arch O. La 00:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Amen — or whatever the Agnostic version is. Arch O. La 01:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

By my definition of agnosticism - yes. I used to consider myself agnostic until I read The Happy Heretic (a good read - highly recommended - the condensed bible is a hoot) and realised I had no reason to not be an athiest - that does not mean I am quantifying all I can ever know - just stating what I currently know (or don't know - you know.....). I think the centrist cabal is a good idea - no more binary (I was tempted to make another commando joke then but resisted). I respect anyone who shows respect to other people. We should have a go at a centrist jesus page and see what everyone thinks. SOPHIA 14:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I got the idea from posts between Jim62sch and CTSWynekan, is he involved? This should be fun. An Athiest, an Agnostic, and a couple of Lutherans walk into a bar... Oh, and there has been a proposed revision to the entire Intro that appears to have been summarily tabled. Arch O. La 14:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As long as you all can live with a stick-in-the-mud, fundie, Pascal Wager-spouting (add your own adjectives but remember, teens are out here) Theist, I'm willing to work with anyone who will agree to reflecting what scholarship says. I will beam with joy if a few even crack a book! --CTSWyneken 14:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Pascal's wager is just part of a larger game. See User:Archola#Metaphysical_Poker. Arch O. La 14:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ya gotta know when to hold 'em... ;-) --CTSWyneken 15:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL. On a warm summer's evening, on a train bound for nowhere, I added it. Arch O. La 16:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Beware, I might mention the Atheist's Wager. :) [5]

In any case, what would happen if an atheist, an agnostic and two Lutherans walked into a bar? :) Jim62sch 17:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Lutheran says, "I'll buy you a beer." The Agnostic says, "I don't know." The Atheist... ;-) --CTSWyneken 18:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Athiest says, "I don't believe in beer." Arch O. La 18:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"........but I will if you buy me one!"SOPHIA 18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Better yet: "There is no beer." Arch O. La 19:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Bartender asks, "Is this a joke?" Arch O. La 17:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC) PS: Check out the "Metaphysical Poker" link above. The Atheist's wager is already in the game. Strange game when some are not sure if one of the players even exists ;) Arch O. La 17:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I missed that -- pretty good. Of course, we could spend years discussing precisely what a deity or deities might be. Jim62sch 17:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Graves—no, but I'll look into it. Interesting how people have been suggesting reading material lately. BTW, who is Rainbowpainter? I've reached the point where I've become agnostic about sockpuppets ;) Arch O. La 17:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've created a section on my User page for The Centrist Faction. Arch O. La 19:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

rofl, I love that joke. (I prefer SOPHIA's punchline.) Jim, you should preserve this conversation on your userpage, or as a sub-page with a link, to show collaboration at its best (and funniest!) KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Historic Nicene Creed

It's a minor point, but why do you consider the word "historic" to be POV? Also, since the paragraph is describing the Christian POV, does it matter? It's a minor point, but on Talk:Jesus I left several reasons why I thought the word was appropriate. Arch O. La 23:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Centrist Faction POV?

Please check my user page (not my talk page) for a message from Ril re:Systemic Bias. Arch O. La 01:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned that's bogus. I'd delete that message from your user page. I have other ideas, but e-mail would be a preferable method of explaining them. Jim62sch 12:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave the message until CTSWyneken has a chance to respond. I believe the disclaimer will settle the issue short of a full merger. Arch O. La | TCF member 21:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong bar. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

(ignore it) KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've created a page collecting the discussions that led to The Centrist Faction (it was confusing having them scattered across four talk pages!) Arch O. La | TCF member 01:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Rainbowpainter

"This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users."

Um. I can't contact you on e-mail (from your user page). Have you done the e-mail confirmation thing we had to do this week? Arch O. La | TCF member 04:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's Greek to be square

Sorry about the "gibberish." Here's a screenshot:

However, we're now debating necessary and sufficient causes for salvation. Well, JimWae is, anyway.

BTW how's the German translation coming? Arch O. La ^Talk TCF 06:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, your DE-2 is better than my DE-0, even though German is the mother tongue of most of my ancestors! Do you know of any DE-4 or De-5s who can help? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, I got the Greek text from the English Wikipedia: John 3:16. I'm not sure why you saw only squares; is your browser Unicode-compatible? Perhaps you need to upgrade. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What does an Agnostic think about salvation?

We've factionalized again. Aiden and Homestarmy are advocating this version of the third paragraph, while JimWae and I are advocating this version. There are also links to comments on both. The main point of contention is salvation; I proposed "Jesus provides salvation," but Aiden and Homestarmy object that this is too vague and open to interpretation. Of course, I feel that if we say any more we run into doctrinal divides!

Care to comment/mediate? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What a fun topic! Could you perhaps add this quote from a very wise Oriental philosopher: "Tutup matamu, saya mau cium kamu" - bound to calm things down. PiCo 09:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If I knew what it meant! Jim62sch 11:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I figured, with all those languages on your front page, you needed just one more :). PiCo 15:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical Jesus

Well, there are Christians, and then there are Christians. I guess I'll have to reserve judgement on Jason Gastrich for now. Judge not and all that.

Jim, I wanted to thank you for the work you've done translating the German article. I think you might make more progress if you applied the translation to Historical Jesus and related articles before you apply them to Jesus. You might also talk to SOPHIA, who has expressed concerns that Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus are separate articles.

I am one of the people who believes that the main article should cover all relevant perspectives on Jesus' life; religion is as important as history, since Jesus is a religious figure. However, some people seem to forget that Jesus is supposed to be a summary of the other articles, and that the introduction is supposed to be the summary of the summary. Who knows, you might be able to get Historical Jesus to FA status before we can do the same with Jesus! Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Haldrick made this edit [6] which I didn't have time to follow up. It's the first time I've seen a proper definition of historical/historicity that makes sense to me. The Jesus of Nazareth that you are proposing should present the synthesis of all the historical data available - primarily the NT of course but drawing on other sources to give it context. The historicity article should be about the sources used and their validity/controversy. At the moment the historicity article goes off track and gives reference to modern scholars who affirm the resurrection and miracles which is why I was always unsure of the clear ground between the two. If the distinction made by Haldrik is kept in mind it suddenly becomes clear where various sections/references belong.

I'd be very happy to help out but I have an interview on Friday and am preparing a presentation so I won't be able to give it much time until the weekend however I think we should take Archola up on his FA challenge. SOPHIA 22:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My own opinion is that Christian views of Jesus should be renamed Jesus Christ, Historical Jesus should be renamed Jesus of Nazareth, and Historicity of Jesus should go back to its original title (which was something like, "Jesus and Textual evidence'). My own vision of the main article is journalistic: X, according to historians. Y, according to Christians, Z according to Muslims, A according to Judaism, and so on and so forth. I see the main article as a summary/abstract of all the relevant articles.

I'm not sure how well this will go over, though. Some seem committed to a divided Jesus ;( Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: Another way to think of it is that the main article is the foreward, and the subarticles are chapters. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Darn the edit clash. I think we forget sometimes how fundamental these issues are to some people. Also a "scientific" approach can come across as an attack as the usual scientific way is to go straight for any perceived weak points. Sorry I can't help with the translating - I'm a classic product of the british education system - completely language unaware.

I don't want it as cold as the German...I was thinking a combo of that and Robert Grave's King Jesus. It's historical, but not scientific, respectful but not hagiographic. Jim62sch 23:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The centrists have a chance to make their mark! (I like Archola's veiw of the forword/chapters take on things). Sophia^TalkTCF 23:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I think CTSWynekan and I have made the point about the main article umpetry-ump times. Perhaps we should make it umpety-ump times ump? ;) Oh, and I changed the redirects of Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus Christ to reflect what we discussed. Let's see how long this lasts... Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, we'll just need to post ground rules. No disputes on the JN page about John 3:16 and the rest of that lot, and no disputes on JC about the Jesus-Pilate conversation and the rest of that lot. Do you want to write it up? I have to feed a four month-old who is really hungry. Jim62sch 23:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus and Pilate

Actually, I think we have a compromise: Aiden won't mention J 3:16 if JimWae will allow the virgin birth. As for Pontius Pilate, have you read Paul Maier's Pontius Pilate: A Biographical Novel? Although historical fiction, Maier's book is heavily documented. It may answer some of your questions (you may not accept the answers). but it's a while before Jesus shows up.

As for King Jesus: I notice that Graves has Jesus speaking fluent Greek! I always thought the broken Greek argument explained why an eloquent preacher suddenly clammed up when he faced Pilate. I don't think that Peter was Barabbas, though. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 07:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Maier may be heavily documented, but I highly, highly, highly doubt the conversation took place -- aside from linguistic reasons, all the machinations are a bit much, and a trial before the Governor seems unlikely, etc., (It does, however, make for good theatre). nyway, the Romans generally only worried about preserving the façade of justice for Roman citizens. Besides, the rest (the mob scene) just didn't happen as the Romans had no such practice.

Graves did a number of things being the smartass that he was. He also has Jesus getting ideas from the Indus valley. Jim62sch 17:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you really know that? ;) There is a tradition in one of the Eastern churches that Pilate's wife was sympathetic to the Jesus movement, perhaps to John the Baptist as well, which explains Pilate's interest. As for the rest, you risk arguing from silence. There may be a valid explanation that is lost to history. At this late date, can we really know for sure? That's why I tend to be agnostic about historicity, although I also place my faith in religion. That's probably why the German article doesn't bother me as much as it bothered Homestarmy. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken objects

Folks! Please do not do anything so radical as to replace the content of the Jesus page. That would indeed start a war. Help me dispose of the two issues on the table at the moment. The way to do this is NOT to debate with anyone over facts. (Including me with the "Jesus spoke Greek" comment. We can do that here or by email). Urge a move towards the exit. Then revert to enforce what most of us think, hopefully without a vote.

Then, let's talk about the page in general. I like the overview as summary of the main issues, with links to subject specific articles. --CTSWyneken 11:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggesting that we "replace the content of the Jesus page," just that we have "the overview as summary of the main issues, with links to subject specific articles." My suggestion to Jim was that he might make more progress adapting his German translation to the Historical Jesus article. This is pretty much what Project Echo is all about: using featured articles in one language to improve articles in other languages. Oh, and I'll cross-post. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 11:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was the point. The Jesus article is, for me, a bit too fractious to deal with on a daily basis. And, knowing that the odds of changing the Jesus article to be more neutral are slim to nil (and Slim just left town), I think that a historical, scientific (to a point) article is needed -- the historical Jesus article itself has it's own problems in that it goes into some issues more deeply than it needs, and other it barely touches upon.

Oh, BTW, the Noah's Ark article that I did a lot of work on (PiCo did more) reached FA status today. Jim62sch 17:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on Noah's Ark. When I said "scientific" I was refering to my approach on the talk pages - the article should read as a structured seamless whole - any perceived "weak points" are a very small part of the whole JC picture and shouldn't be given prominence in an overview article. I'm going to have a look at the two issues that CTSWyneken is refering to as I haven't been following them properly to see if I can help reduce the volatility of the article. Sophia^TalkTCF 18:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Folks:

Because the subject of the Jesus article is so emotional to everyone, I doubt we can have calm on the talk page -- ever. I do think that we can achieve some stability on the page itself, however, if we keep the debates there and not in edit summaries.

At the risk of sounding cabalistic, what if we use each other's talk pages to sort through issues at hand and then come to the talk pages with some sense of unity? On the issue of the etomology of the name of Jesus, I think we can resolve a form of the text if we can convince Haldrik to let us cover the issues in detail on the subpage. I think we can short-circuit the debate itself if we emphasize with Jayg the asthetics. I've never liked etomology in general articles. It sounds pompous to me.

On the dates issue... I know you don't like to wide range version Jim, and I think we can establish general agreement among scholars for 6-4 BC/BCE. We put that on the page, however, and we will have constant edits from well-meaning folk that buy into one or another minority views or arguments.

What do you all think of putting those dates in the text, footnoting it and work together (I have a fellow I need to dialog with on the Martin Luther page now, too) to document the majority and minority views there, putting in a reference to a chronology subarticle (which I assume exists? --CTSWyneken 11:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted what?

I saw the message you left on Justin Eiler's talk page, and I must admit I'm confused. 1) Why was a message addressed to "Arch" left on Justin's page? 2) What was deleted, who deleted it, and what does this "it" have to do with Greek or Hebrew? 3) Essentially correct about what? 4) Does MPerel's "point" matter now that Mperel and Haldrik have reached an agreement? (I'm not sure about Jayjg, though.) 5) Why did you sign this mesage twice? 6) Is this any of my business, or did you address this message to another Arch?

To put it another way, your message lacks context. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Justin Eiler)

Hi, Jim and Arch--what happened is I was trying to revert Arch's removal of the "Nowiki" tags--he thought I included them accidently, but they were part of my proposal for a new subsection (you can see the Nowikied heading further down in the diff). I evidently took too long and you got your edit in while I was trying to get mine finished. I had no intent to remove anyone's posting, and I apologize for the confusion. Justin Eiler 17:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I get the context now and it makes sense ;) Haldrik and MPerel seem to have settled their dispute over the status and form and uncertaintry of late second-temple Hebrew, a long dispute that I know was frustrating CTSWyneken. Now that the data is in a form everyone can agree on, we can go back to debating where to place this data. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, more debating. The first debate delayed the second debate. MPerel has reluctantly agreed to have the data in the intro (to forestall a less accurate placement there by newer editors), but I'm not sure if Jayjg will agree. Of course, I haven't caught up with Talk:Jesus yet today. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

Have you made a start on this one yet? In a way I'm hoping we lose the race to FA as the editors on JC and Christianity are pulling together nicely at the moment making for a much more pleasant editing experience - and a more productive one. I ended up busier at the weekend than I thought but I should have some time this week to start going through things. Sophia^TalkTCF 13:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW ignore the previous edit summary - darned auto fill on the mac!Sophia^TalkTCF 13:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I've come across that guy at Mythology. DreamGuy may have some tips on how to deal with him as I know he has had problems with him in the past. You're not wrong about the Jesus article. I read the previous failed FA drive results and the areas they were looking for progress in are not much different even now . They wanted broader views such as Jesus in popular culture but I can't see the current set of editors allowing pictures of the "Jesus action figures" and "dashboard Jesus" that are currently availible! Maybe the name change would solve a lot of these problems. Sophia^TalkTCF 08:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You'll get my support on a name change - I think if you phrase it carefully you'll get more general agreement too as they really don't want to make room for the stuff recommended in the last FA drive.

Keep meaning to say how much I like the "yapping terriers" quote on your page! We have one or two of those to deal with - hope you didn't miss the classic post from our old friend yesterday! Sophia^TalkTCF 13:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've raised the point that we need to consider and act on the previous FA comments. I even gathered that and the previous peer review into a subpage. I do not think we have come as far as Homestarmy believes. Rather, I agree with MPerel. The legacy of the man of Nazareth goes farther than Christianity, and we need a main article that encompases history, theology, philosophy, art and whatever else might be relevant.

BTW, whatever happened to the "Jesus in pop culture" section of the Jesus article? It was there not too long ago. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A week later

I just think that we should keep the Greek and Hebrew forms of Jesus' name together, as well as the Aramaic and Latin forms if we use them. I'll let Haldrik and Jayjg duke it out over the rest. You may have noticed that I have now agreed with both of them ;)

Honestly, I think Haldrik and Jayjg are the only two who are keeping the debate going. The rest of us have said our piece. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Likely from Hebrew" seems to me to be as good as the "reconstructed from Hebrew" compromise that Haldrik and MPerel worked out, but Jayjg seems unable to accept it. Yes, Haldrik has made the point that Jesus' given name would have been in Hebrew. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

On the Split in Adam and Eve

I commented on the split I made earlier in Adam and Eve. See the article's talk page. joturner 23:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

See nr 23 of the Adam and Eve page.
Blubberbrein2 16:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Eve (first woman)

Jim

The outcome of the vote on merging [[Eve (first woman) with Adam and Eve:

Support. Don't think that a seperate article needs to be opened. Each person was a unique character, but since they are almost always discussed together, a seperate article is redundant. --Shuki 11:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose as the wording in that article is inflammatory, can be seen as misogynistic and POV, and not needed in this article. Jim62sch 11:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Create a redirect from there to Adam and Eve page, merge any useful material, ignore any myth=fact nonsense. — Dunc|☺ 12:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect and merge per Dunc. FeloniousMonk 18:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Redirect and merge - most of the Eve Original Woman article is not worth keeping PiCo 07:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

You might not think that "support" and "oppose" can end up meaning the same thing, but in this case they do. Nobody wants two articles. The "merge" part, well, I think nobody sees anything worth merging. So, can I just delete the content off that page (maybe with a note that it's been decided to merge with A&E) and add a "redirect"? Or is that sort of thing not encouraged in Wikiland? Do we need to ask/tell and admin? PiCo 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask KillerChihuahua...I'm not sure that poll is binding anyway as there was no clear cut consensus and very few people voting. Jim62sch 10:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Just saw this - no a poll is never binding - wikipedia is not a democracy - I have seen quotes on Jim Wales page to that effect in the past. Sophia^TalkTCF 14:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC on the christianity/Jesus pages

Hi Jim - you haven't been around for a few days on these pages but it's all blown up again. Our "yapping terriers" need a neutral trainer as they are starting to chew each other again!. I'll let you have the link as soon as I have it as it will be really good to have all input. I said to Archie I'm looking on this as a centrist thing as I'm trying to pull them all into the middle to slog it out with neutral referees! As I don't know what I'm doing this may take a couple of days to set up! Sophia^TalkTCF 14:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich

The above arbitration case has been closed and the finall decision published.

For the arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, his brother Yeshua the Nazarene, and their evil triplet Yeshu ben Pandera

I've copied this here from the Jesus talk page.

The "evidence Bible" is a publication of Kirk Cameron and his The Way of the Master program, to which Homestarmy belongs. From what I've seen of their website, it's preaching to the choir.

As for the rest, Haldrik and I have suggested that the Life and Teachings section should be a biography and thus include more about history & archaelogy, but we keep going back to sola scriptura. As I Lutheran I think this good theology, but poor history. My point to Robsteadman was that we need to include the "religious perspectives" section because Jesus Christ is a religious figure. However, we should also include the historical Jesus because most scholars agree that Jesus was also a real historical figure. Many feel that Yeshua the Nazarene was a very different person than Jesus Christ, as noted on Rick Norwood's talkpage. I've tried to include this perspective. We even include the idea that Jesus was all myth, over the objections of some editors.

Then it comes down to asking "what is truth" and "what is NPOV." Yes, this article has become politicized (conflicting POVS), which is why I think we need a peer review.

BTW, should I Americanize or Anglicise the spellings? Using both is kind of like using both AD/BC and CE/BCE Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, that header title comes from a rather odd experience that I mentioned on the talk page. Three different takes on Jesus and the Pharisees.

I don't think we're saying exactly the same thing. You've been saying that the article as a whole leans toward Jesus Christ rather than Jesus in general. I've been saying that specifically about the Life and Teachings section. People keep pointing out that the Gospels provide the plot outline. True, but we already have an outline: the chronology section. Myself, I'd rather read a biography than an outline of a biography.

As for the article itself, we do have a long historicity section. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Seven out of ten ain't bad. It's good, but it might not be featured. What do we need to do to get the other three? BTW how's the German coming? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You said, "BTW, did I ever mention my parents tried to raise me Lutheran?" Yeah, I saw where you mentioned the LCA to CTSWyneken. It's also incorporated into the TCF Genesis. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Genesis

Good band. I like Phil Collins beter than Peter Gabriel, but this might be an aquired taste. It's just that....

Oh, wait, wrong Genesis.

Well, since you're mired in Genesis I realize it might be a while before you go get to the Gospels, after all they're towards the end of the book. Since you're going over Genesis, perhaps you can tell me why does Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil say nothing about Jewish interpretations? What do the Rabbis say? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to read the Bible straight through, but Leviticus always makes me feel so guilty. The first time I read that book, I didn't eat ham for a month.

There are, of course, good collections of data and bad collections of data. My point was that the Bible is not all about the supernatural, there's also a nice chunk of real estate in the Mideast where a lot of this took place, at a time studied by many historians and archaelogists. I wish Robsteadman and TrumpetPower would get the point that you don't have to be religious to consider some of the details to be possible. As for your analogy, have Rabbis ever conducted a Moses Seminar and cast votes? Now, that would be an interesting collection of data.

I would like to know the Rabbinic take on the non-apple fruit, but unfortunately there are not too many Jews in Iowa. The hog farmers scared them all away—it's just not kosher! Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Howard-Aircrafter-Mr-Mullig.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Howard-Aircrafter-Mr-Mullig.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 14:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Politics

Galicia

Abadín

Merry Christmas

Benapgar

Optimus learning the ropes

ID Mediation request

3RR and vandalism

Black Sea deluge theory/replacing "science" by "non-deist science"

Missing article

Need you to look over something

English touch-ups

Bullying

Rods, etc.

Other Flood Stories

Your comments

Your sarcasm

Inside view by Perfecto

Ignorance is Bliss

Intelligent design

Projects

Don't feed the trolls

IC

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich

First Family of the United States

Email

ID peer-review Issue

different guy

Reconciliation

criticism

Problem of induction

Signature

Thanks

Thanks

Wage labour

Bored

Encouragement

Origin of Threads content

You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment...

Noah's Ark featured article candidate

Laurence Eusden

Love Your Latin

In the Beginning

The Centrist Faction is born

Historic Nicene Creed

Centrist Faction POV?

Rainbowpainter

It's Greek to be square

What does an Agnostic think about salvation?

Historical Jesus

Jesus and Pilate

CTSWyneken objects

Deleted what?

Historicity of Jesus

A week later

On the Split in Adam and Eve

Eve (first woman)

RfC on the christianity/Jesus pages

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich

Jesus Christ, his brother Yeshua the Nazarene, and their evil triplet Yeshu ben Pandera

Genesis

Image copyright problem with Image:Howard-Aircrafter-Mr-Mullig.jpg