User talk:Crews Giles/Archive 1

Pauline mysticism

I notice that you've removed the Pauline mysticism content from the Christian mysticism article. Why do you think it doesn't belong? And do you think the Pauline mysticism article is bunk as well? I don't have any investment in that article--I'm just curious as to why it wouldn't be appropriate in the Chr.Myst. article. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is the second time around. The Pauline Mysticism content did exist in the article last year and was questioned then by the editors. Agreeing to remove it, the contributor forked the material into its own article by that name which was speedily deleted as not meeting the criteria for an article.
Second, the most recent three contributer's (of Pauline Mysticism) accounts were deleted soon after making the contributions-- for the very same reason-- making additions to existing articles that had already been rejected in the past. Apparently reported by another article's editors-- you can go look at the former users' discussion pages and see that discussion and the associated warnings for those users-- as I did before deleting the content the first time.
Third, the content of "Pauline Mysticism" is antagonistic to the general topic of Christian Mysticism and therefore fails the Point-of-View expectations defined by Wikipedia and as has been discussed at great length on the Christian Mysticism Discussion page.
Fourth, over 70% of the article had previously been contributed in support of that relatively minor point of view-- thus unreasonably giving the "Pauline Mysticism" subject undue weight.
Fifth, The offsite links and source references of the previous postings of that subject were almost entirely of original research.
Sixth, Previous editors had determined at that time that the inclusion of the subject was apparently for the purpose of promoting a book-- that is according to the warnings on the user account discussion pages.
Seventh, the string or related usernames being created, making similar changes, and then the account being deleted is indicative of vandalism in that it appears to be the same person or persons with the same intent-- an intent which has already been addressed, discussed and rejected.

All of the above are violations of Wikipedia's expressed expectations for contributions.

As for my own view Pauline Mysticism and its place in the Christian Mysticism article... The contributed material does not seem to be able to stand without first accusing Christian mystics of being a part of a conspiracy and digresses quickly into conspiracy theories-- which have no relation to the article. The style and passion of the attacks has not been presented in an academic manner, and tends to suggest that the content is the result of a seminar, leaflet, or perhaps a series of sermons rather than formal academic study. Furthermore, the contributer seems to indicate no familiarity with the actual content of the Christian Mystics-- their writings and teachings not once addressed in any of what was contributed. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

For the record, I did not refer to the material as "bunk" as you claimed.

My personal opinions are moot in regards to the content of the article, but I do not mind sharing them here: I do reject Pauline Mysticism as I have encountered it in this mode, because I have read many of the Christian Mystics, am knowledgeable regarding the subject, and have an academic background from an accredited post-graduate institution in Christian Theology and practice. Therefore, with authority I can state that Pauline Mysticism, as it has been presented thus far, cannot endure against historical fact, or academic scrutiny. It seems dependent upon assuming malintent by the practitioners of Christian Mysticism without evidence to support that intent. It is presently articulated in a way which is devoid of familiarity with what Christian Mystics have written, taught, practiced and believe.

I believe it is a passive-aggressive attack on catholicism and on mainstream Protestantism by seeding fear, uncertainty and doubt among the readers of the article on Christian Mysticism who may seek to learn something of themselves and their own mystical gifts in relation to Christianity. If that it is so, it does violence to a Christian soul which is called by God to draw nearer to Him by supernatural, or epi-natural, means. Frankly, I am suspicious that Pauline Mysticism is likely the outgrowth of a small sectarian, fundamentalist, and expressly anti-catholic group who lack such spiritual gifts and therefore attack those who have them, due to envy. But all of that is just my opinion and has no place on Wikipedia. Then again, would you suggest it might be the main content I ought to contribute to the Pauline Mysticism article?--cregil 03:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your views. I too have some academic background in mysticism and can see your point and share some of your concerns. But the Paulinist has now made a stink over at a speedy deletion talk page and I, not knowing all this backstory, have encouraged him/her to engage in discussion over at the Chr.Myst. talk page. Do you think it would be profitable to recopy these comments onto that page as well? If not, what do you suggest is the best way to handle the situation? It seems as though the editor(s) is going to keep pushing the point. Is there some way to point out in the article that the two viewpoints are contradictory--that Pauline Mysticism is a rejection of classical Christian mysticism. (The other editor did in fact complain that the article was too "New Age/Gnostic" etc., and I mentioned that that sounds like Catholic bashing.) Also: I notice that the current edits seem to refer to Schweitzer, and I've found references to the term dating back to the late-1800s, so it's not inconceivable that the term has some legitimacy. But I certainly recognize your point that the Protestant tradition has not been very friendly towards the Catholics. I'm working on an article by Tillich that I think succumbs to that same temptation. Anyway, I've started a call for discussion on the scope of the article; maybe we'll get some outside folks involved. Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been done, and the user is already gone-- note the account is now in red-- that user no longer exists. The same edits on the same small group of articles, the same creation of forked articles and the same warnings which were ignored and thus the same outcome-- deleted forked articles, deleted vandalism and deleted user. Reasoning is unproductive, discussions have taken place-- that user is willfully and knowingly vandalizing, refusing to abide by the rule and refusing to take No for an answer.

Take the time to look at all of the contributions made by users whose accounts are listed in red. Take a look at those users' Talk pages-- they are filled with warnings for exactly the sort of thing we just witnessed.

Schweitzer is a non-entity in the discussion of Christian Mysticism. That he opposed it makes him a non-entity in the discussion.

"Pauline Mysticism" is dependent upon the false accusation that there is a secret knowledge passed to initiates. I am pretty sure I would remember if ever having read that in any of my studies-- and, between you and me, I would definitely remember it if I had been initiated and been passed secrets! The "secrets" have been continuously published for Centuries. The point is that "Pauline Mysticism" is a subject which exists only to contradict another-- implicit in the name is that Christian Mysticism is contrary to the teachings of Saint Paul-- but no support for that assumption is provided, instead it simply (and falsely) claims Christian Mysticism to be of the Gnostic heretical sect's origin.

I would think that most of the editors of the article are all Christian mystics, and restraining themselves from using personal experience and personal wisdom out of discipline of removing oneself from the subject. The "Pauline Mysticism" advocate lacks that maturity.--cregil 05:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And Yessy(insert various digits here) and WalkingTheLight(insert digits here) are almost certainly the same person or group. All are deleted accounts.--cregil 06:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering what you meant, since those two are still editing. Do we report them as sockpuppets of a deleted account? Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would not know how to go about reporting-- all of that is magic to me-- I have no idea how such things take place; but, Yes, I would think there must be some mechanism for blocking such accounts must exist-- I feel as if I have lost any measure of effectiveness as an editor because of the frequency of complexity of recent edits.--cregil 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I also don't know how to report suspected sockpuppets, but maybe I'll check into it. Today, my approach is to take whatever might be factually accurate and make it as NPOV as possible. The historical approach might be best. Instead of saying what Chr. Myst. is, we can talk about what it has been. That way, people can't complain about doctrinal problems because we're simply reporting the past. That's one approach anyway.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the similarity on names/themes of names, the commonality of the articles, the similar brief bursts of activity, and adjacent dates of activity:

Torchrunner 16 articles in two weeks of September 2009

Christian Mysticism | Jakob Lorber

ITtalker 4 Articles in 8 days of December 2009

Christian Mysticism | Jakob Lorber

Jampies9 6 articles in 18 days of October 2010

Christian Mysticism (all Pauline Mysticism) | Jakob Lorber

Yvette100 1 article, many edits Nov 4, 2010

Christian Mysticism (all Pauline Mysticism)

WalkingInTheLight2 4 articles from November 4 – Dec 1, 2010

Christian Mysticism | Pauline Mysticism

Yessica5 2 articles from Feb 28- Mar 11, 2011

Christian Mysticism

Yessy543 7 Articles from March 16-27, 2011

Christian Mysticism | Pauline Mysticism

These must be the same person and IP address should confirm. --cregil 02:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You may be right about those users being sockpuppets of one another, but I don't see any evidence that any of them has been blocked or banned. I'll keep looking though.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WalkingInTheLight2 had been the primary offender when I came on and took interest. Mind you, I had run across the article looking for something good to read and was appalled that the article was really about Conspiracy Theories! He forked his material into Differences between Christian mysticism and Evangelical mysticism which was then rejected and his account was deleted. Pauline, Evangelical Differences, and Lorber all seem to be connected in the contributer's mind, but I cannot define that connection.

The amount of time and effort this has required ought to be indication that preventing future such edits by instant reversion and subsequent blocking should be automatic and without further discussion. --cregil 19:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Your edits, Aristophanes68, are impressive. The article now represents what I had original come to it hoping to find. You have provided a tremendous effort and it shows. Thank you. I am anxious, now, to follow links and sources you have provided-- and simply read. --cregil 16:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, although I was mostly just creating place-holders that should be filled in as time goes by. But perhaps just having a good structure will help the page develop in a more appropriate manner. Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Böhme?

After I got home today, I went to my bookshelf and looked through every book I had on the history of Christian spirituality, and I found NINE books—including books by Underhill and McGinn—that discuss Böhme as an example of Lutheran mystical piety and radical dissent. A couple of them mention his heterodoxy and/or his use of Gnostic ideas, but none of them reject him as a Christian mystic, and all of them discuss him as an important figure on later writers. So, it seems that there are plenty of reliable sources that would justify keeping him in this page. What do you think? Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list is not helped by his inclusion nor is it diminished by his omission-- instead, Boehme creates controversy, if included, and begs the article to address his works-- we want to avoid that.--cregil 15:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The automatic messages contradict one another: one turning my four tildes into a signature and the other then stating that it is unsigned. Please fix the bot or suggest a solution I can apply.

dash, dash, tilde, tilde, tilde, tilde --cregil 18:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Signatures#Sinebot Bug (scroll down to end of page--it's the third to last entry). The solution seems to be to include a link in your signature; easily fixed. You could also add the {{help me}} template to this section to get assistance. Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so maybe like this will work...--cregil talk 06:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And since that one seems to be working, I customize. Thanks! --cregil (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

I know you're just editing in good faith, but please take care when reverting in accordance with the 3RR guidelines, like in the Pauline mysticism article. I have reported the other editor at the Administrator's Noticeboard/Edit Warring regarding the continual reverts, but don't let yourself get drawn into an edit war either. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29_reported_by_User:Avanu_.28Result:_.29 )

Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm rather startled by the reversions-- as if taken as a personal attack-- especially from a user who has made no contributions to the article. I cannot imagine why such a user is involved, much less aggressively so. I am open to suggestions as I am now at a loss as to how to proceed.

--cregil (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring PROD tags

Hello. I'm afraid that your edit to Pauline mysticism here suggests a lack of familiarity with WP:PROD. "Proposed deletion" tags may be removed by anyone, and once they have been they may not be restored. In that case, the deletion is not uncontroversial, and you must take the article to deletion debate if you still believe that it should be deleted. While contributors are encouraged to explain the removal of the PROD, they are not required. As policy notes: "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. This excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion, such as page blanking or obvious vandalism, and tags removed by banned users may be restored. If you still believe that the article needs to be deleted, or that the article should be deleted but with discussion, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. I was under the impression that the tag could not removed without discussion or edits (as the tag itself states is the case). The tag, then, can be rendered useless by simply deleting without addressing the issue. I am sorry, I was unaware of that.--cregil (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tag does request improvement and/or discussion, but it isn't mandatory. I'm afraid that the PROD process is really only useful in uncontroversial situations; not only can they be removed by anyone for any reason, but articles deleted via PROD are routinely restored on request by anyone at any point after deletion. AFD is really the only option for controversial deletions, whether those who object explain why or not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cited student book reports from an instructor's private pages! Worse, those book reports contradicted your claim, rather than support it. Unlike you, I read them! That is shabby scholarship. I did better work when I was nine years old-- had better access to research and was more well read. And you think you have something to say to me? You don;t even have thing to say about the article-- you just rant and rave, stamping your little feet. You need a spanking.

That you have taken such an outrageous stance, and then behave with personal attacks mixed with autonomous edits (removing tags, changing headings, deleting the work of others, etc.) in the face of the team as well as defying the decision of third party editors when requested-- I am left with nothing but to assume you are but an Internet Troll.--cregil (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medjugorje messages

Giles, I wasn't trying to drive you away by my flippancy. I think your idea has merit. I know nothing about the messages. My suggestion would be for you to choose a short one and add it to the article. (Of course it has to be referenced). I wouldn't delete it; I'm an inclusionist. But, I also can't predict if there would be a consensus to keep your addition of a message or two. Cheers. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Texas revolution

Misrepresenting my statements and claiming I gave no citations when in fact I did, does nothing elevate your position. I cited TWO (texas based even) college sites. Academia trumps uncited reverse PC and revisionist history for the sake of a regional and political agenda. Cosand (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]