User talk:Sophia/archive1

User SOPHIA Archive 1 From 6th January 2006 to 6th March 2006

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello Sophia/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- KHM03 21:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

ReligiousTolerance.org

Hi... if people are removing references to ReligiousTolerance.org under the misapprehension that it shouldn't be cited, you can always let me know where (prefer here or by email, as I have someone harassing me on my talk page so have to revert it constantly and could conceivably erase other comments there accidentally). DreamGuy 12:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry not to reply before but things have been a bit mad. I tried to e-mail you but I couldn't work out how to do it. Thanks for the support - how can the Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org page be got rid of? It's unacceptable to just leave it there as I've seen it open to misinterpretation.

I must say you have the patience of a saint (pardon the pun). I've been reading the Mythology pages and discussions in disbelief. I never would have thought it would arouse so much passion but I wonder if there would be as much controversy if there wasn't a Christian Mythology page. SOPHIA 20:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Further Reading

Hi Sophia. Thank you for your kind words of support and your suggested reference. I have not cited Elaine Pagels as a source but being that she is a Professor of Religion at Princeton University I have to think that KHM03 can't claim that she is no more to be considered than my mailman, again! hehe With your permission I'd like to share you astute comments on the Talk page in the ongoing debate for reaching a consensus. Thanks again! Giovanni33 14:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Re your post on Christianity:

Sorry, Sophia, if we scared you, which never was our attention. But I know how you feel and can positively state that no offense is taken (and I think I can speak for the others on this). I also appreciate your attempts of calming down tension despite our own differences. Goodnight, Str1977 00:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA, I want to echo what Str1977 said. It was never our intention to scare anyone off. I was puzzled at your assertion that I (with two others) had been "at" you. My recollection is that I disagreed with your case, just as you disagreed with mine. If I'm mistaken, and I came across as shouting you down in some way, I'm sorry. My early days at Wikipedia were spent at an article where I was very much in the minority, where foul (and I mean really foul) language and abusive edit summaries were used, and where literally everything that I or people who agreed with me got reverted. The only edits I could make which stayed up were spelling and punctuation changes. So I would never wish to be ungenerous or dismissive towards someone who was in the minority on a talk page while I, temporarily, was in the majority. As editors leave and are replaced frequently, these brief periods of triumph or defeat can never be seen as permanent!

I admit I was a little peeved, though I still hope not aggressively so, when I saw a claim here that I (though I wasn't referred to by name) had told someone that the religious tolerance site "should never be used to source information in Wikipedia articles", when in fact, I had asked someone to look at this article, and had provided a link to it, so that anyone reading my post would find it easily. I had then said that that article said that RT shouldn't be used to source information. The context was that an editor had said that he didn't think anyone here would disagree with RT's NPOV mission, and that they were a model to be emulated. I wanted to point out that he was mistaken in thinking that nobody here would disagree with their NPOV mission. My message to him was short and courteous, and pointed him towards the article, asking him to look at it.[1] I never claimed it was policy, and if I had intended to give that impression, I would not have asked him to look at it or supplied the link, which would show anybody the exact status of that page.

Anyway, that's in the past, and perhaps it's petty even to bring it up now. Like Str1977, I can say that I did appreciate your efforts to calm things down at Talk:Christianity recently. Regarding your comments at Jesus and at User talk:Robsteadman, I will tell you that it's perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia policy to have a page protected because of an edit war, as long as the admin carrying out the block is not actively involved in editing that page. And Rob was not blocked because of what he was inserting into the article; he was blocked because of how often he inserted it.

It might interest you to know that while I have, so far, always agreed with Str1977, I don't always agree with KHM03. However, I have found both of them extremely easy to work with, and I have recollections of both of them being generous to their opponents and also agreeing to insert material that was not favourable to their personal POVs. I'm not in a position to comment on how I come across to others, and I may, indeed, have failed to take into account that you were new. But I will say that I have generally managed to stay on good terms (sometimes very good terms) with people I disagree with, other than those who indulge in an excessive amount of aggression or sneering. Anyway, once again, I'm sorry that your initial experience with three established Wikipedians was negative. If it makes up in any way, I'll tell you that I do agree that this edit was an improvement. There are occasionally some editors who seem to have an agenda of inserting anti-Christian bias into articles, and who seem to be here solely for that purpose. (And of course, there are those who have the opposite agenda, too!) Although we have different POVs, I do regard you as a genuine editor, here to improve the encyclopaedia. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 12:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Didn;t mean to ride roughshod over your edit - it didn;t warn me that someone else had edited while I was having a go! If you prefer yours please revert. Robsteadman 19:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I hope you don't mind me suggesting the move to the Historicity of Jesus topic but I'm learning fast how to phrase things so that doctrinal bells don't go off! SOPHIA 19:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems we might have a result Robsteadman 21:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus

I've unprotected the page. If the edit war starts all over again though, I will re-protect. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

COUldn;t resist a little more rewriting. Will now leave it I promise! FOr a while anyway! Robsteadman 10:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comment over at Ann's

Dear Sophia, thanks for pointing me to your thoughtful post over at Ann's. I actually consider it one of the causes behind many problems that some people don't realize their subconscious POV, think their views the norm or standard and then start to pick on others. My, if I may call him that, nemesis here on Wikipedia is of that bent, claiming that he doesn't have a "POV". After almost a year he still hasn't realised the impossibility of that position. But that needn't trouble you, now that you have "seen the light".

I appreciate all you've said and especially with "they can call themselves anything they want but it's how they behave that counts in my book". That's not to say that "Christians that commit crimes are no longer Christians" - that would be a sneaky way out, but whether their crimes can be blamed on Christianity is another matter. As it is Christians sinners no less than non-Christians. "It is the sick that need the doctor, not the healthy."

In regard to the French Revolution issue, I agree that the state of the French Church before the FR was less than perfect in many regards and that Christians did commit crimes and some might have stood by while people suffered. On the other hand, those that suffered where Christians and Catholics too and I doubt how many of those attacked by the revolutionaries were actually personally guilty of these crimes, and which revolutionaries were less guilty. Punishment for a actual crime is not persecution, but I don't believe in "collective guilt" - I think the Church was made a scape goat for many things, but also attacked for philosophical reasons that have nothing to do with the plight of the people. People like Talleyrand would fit into your category of by-stander but they were not among the persecuted but rather on the other side (not yet actual persecution but the roots of it). Edmund Burke's quote on St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre I have already referred to.

Be that as it may, I consider you a serious thoughtful editor too and your recent posts give evidence to that. All the best to you and your coming child and of course the two already at your side. Cheers, Str1977 17:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article "scholars generally hold..."

Would you assist it keeping this paragraph pinned in place and the footnote stuck to it long enough to discuss it on the talk page? I'm more than annoyed by this editor who stays away from the talk page while careful discussion results in a comprimise, only to have him sweep it away because he thinks the scholarly majority crazy. --CTSWyneken 01:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh please

I am no troll and I regret and will take back nothing. Everything I sad I will proudly stand by. I challenge you and anyone else to show me one thing I said to him that was a "personal attack" or trolling or a lie or anything else. (Calling someone a vandal or a troll, now those are personal attacks by the way) It's easy to throw those words around but when you have to actually pin point it you soon realize that your allegations are baseless and just meanspirited. I was simply debating him and challenging his POV edit techniques and clear agenda (stated by him as getting people to the "lies" as he put it). If he or anyone else can't handle that then they are in the wrong place. I put nothing in his mouth, just simply quoted his words back to him. If he doesn't like being quoted than he needs to stop saying things that make him look bad. For that I have no regrets. Don't ever call me a troll unless your willing to back it up. Be careful what you call people here. Good day. No hard feelings.Gator (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Allright look, I've had only the deepest respect for you. You've demonstrated on the Jesus page that you can have your POV and can push for the changes to the article you want without losing civility and sight of the rules. However, you've crossed the line and you just need to back off from the personal attacks ("troll" "arrogant" etc) before you get in trouble. Just let it end here before you make things worse. I have no hard feelings and am willing to forget all of this and work with you like nothing has happened, but it needs to stop here. Your comments on my talk page were personal attacks and will not be allowed to stand. Do not put them back or I will consider it as even more vandalism. That's all there is to it. Just let this go and we can still be friends. Have a good one and I look forward to working with you in the future. Let this be the last of this whole affair.Gator (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oooo lucky SOPHIA - she can still be "friends". Fol da re fol, da ro. Rob steadman 20:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, I've had a very difficult time dealing with Gator on the Laura Schlessinger page. He is unwilling to accommodate users who oppose his views, and he does not give other users the benefit of the doubt. I think his latest comments are personal attacks. I respect his opinions, but I find him easily threatened and reckless in retaliation. I do not enjoy working with him, and I try to avoid it as much as possible. --Muchosucko 20:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have seen beligerent users taken care of with a "Request for Comment" [2] or a "Request for Arbitration" [3][4]. These are for egregious cases with plenty of evidence. If Gator's attitude is systematic and he continues, there might be enough evidence to put him up for some kind of review or censure. Somebody should deal with his monopoly over certain pages. --Muchosucko 21:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus

There is no cut and dry policy on this, but I'm of the opinion that a user's user and user talk pages are his own, and he can do whatever he wants (including removing comments) with a few exceptions (personal attacks, legal threats, etc). Mind linking me to the diff's on his talk and the basis of the dispute? I'd be willing to mediate if things are getting out of hand. -Greg Asche (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"Courage of convictions"

Hi, I don't want to start a heated argument or anything, I'm just curious to know if you really feel like rob's editing stance is something to be imitated. You said on gator's talk page: "attempts to paint Rob as a bad influence out to convert people are not justified from what he has written." He himself wrote: "The supernatural, mytical and oter hocus pocus should have no place in modern society. Such mumbo jumbo needs to be sham it is - the gospels do a great job of showing that "christianity" is founded on shaky ground - as long as the evidence is presented fairly, evenly and with NPOV people will be able to judge for themselves and see the lies. ... Roll on the day when we have all religious articles being NPOV. ... I hope that from that more will see the lies of "faith"" (Note that his definition of NPOV is not the wikipedia definition)
Now, I'm not talking about whether you agree with the sentiment or not, that has no bearing here on wikipedia and that's not what I'm interested in. How can you not see that this is his agenda in editing articles? Does having such a goal require some courage? I'm sure it does; is it appropriate for wikipedia? I don't think so. We all have a POV, even though some may think they have a NPOV, we just have to be careful as to how that POV affects our editing here. --Oscillate 15:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I didn't really understand the message you left me, could you explain more? Also, sorry to hear about the issues regarding the sockpuppetry, but from what I've seen there wasn't any problem because of your POV, but rather just getting caught along with troubles of Gio who was in trouble because of his actions. Reconsider staying? --Oscillate 15:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article, Second Paragraph

Dear Sophia, I've initiated a section on the Jesus talk page to see if we can't come to a resolution of the language. Please drop by and register your vote. --CTSWyneken 15:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please review this if you haven't done so already. Thanks...KHM03 20:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"you can't ever prove a negative"

The only other place that I've come across this odd claim is Usenet, where it seems to be an article of faith. It's simply false. Here's a negative: "My right hand doesn't have six fingers" — easily proved by looking at my hand and counting my fingers. Here's another: "No Labour M.P. owns Battersea Bridge" — easily proved either by checking the ownership of the bridge or the possessions of all Labour M.P.s. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's easy when you set up a situation you can test - but try it with one you can't. I worship the teapot that orbits the sun - it's too small to be detected so you prove it's not there. [[User:SOPHIA|SOPHIA 00:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, what? You made a general statement, and now complain that my refutation rested on examples that I chose (you think that I should have chosen examples that I hadn't chosen?); a general statement covers all possible examples, or else it's false. Of course some negatives can't be proved, just as some positives can't be. If you meant: "This negative can't be proved" you should have said so, not made a sweeping statement that made your comment look like a matter of (logical) principle rather that a claim about a particular statement.

Your "counter example" would have been useful if I'd made the silly claim that all negative claims can be proved — but I didn't. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hi, SOPHIA. First of all, I want to say thanks for your long and very reasonable reply to my message some time ago. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, but I've been really busy lately. KHM03 has alerted you to the Checkuser result, which traced your edits and those of User:TheShriek to the same IP. You might take a moment to read WP:SOCK. Basically, the real problem is not so much that someone would use a second account, but that someone would abuse it by trying to get six reverts per day or vote twice. I haven't examined your contributions or TheShriek's in depth, but when the result came through, I did take a brief look, and I saw no evidence of any attempt to use the two accounts in order to vote twice or to revet six times.

It's possible that TheShriek is your husband or boyfriend or mother or father or sister. It's also possible that it's a second account that you created, and then stopped using. Maybe you felt a bit discouraged by other people opposing your arguments, decided to start again with a new identity (though it doesn't, to my mind, sound like the kind of name you would have chosen), and then later changed your mind. If you think this is none of my business, you're probably right. As long as a second account is not abused, it's not really anyone's business. Therefore, nobody would ever have known, if I hadn't put in a request because of four new accounts that supported Giovanni. It has now been shown that Giovanni and Belinda are the same. (Again, that might mean two people at one address, rather than one user with two accounts. But I seem to recall that the Arbcom ruled that multiple users under one roof count as one user for voting purposes. I can't find the reference, but it was discussed in the case of Hollow Wilerding.)

An administrator put a notice on TheShriek's user page saying it was a sockpuppet for you after the result came through. Even though sockpuppetry isn't forbidden unless someone is trying to vote twice or get round 3RR, it's still frowned on. I know I wouldn't like to have that on my user page!

You might like to explain your connection to that account. Or not. It's entirely up to you. But if it was your account, and has now been abandoned, you might prefer me to delete that page. Or you might wish to edit it, remove the "sockpuppet" word, and simply say something like, "I am now editing as SOPHIA." On the other hand, if TheShriek is, for example, your husband, he might like to put "I am married to SOPHIA" on his page, in place of the sockpuppet notice. Jdavidb's page links to his wife's page, and Mindspillage's page links to her boyfriend's. There's no problem, and nobody thinks either of those administrators is doing anything wrong. The problem is when people do what Giovanni/Belinda did — setting up an elaborate pretence of being two unconnected users, even in the messages they sent each other on their talk pages, voting on the same issues, reverting the same articles, claiming things like "four editors agree with Giovanni's version", etc. So if you'd like to give any clarification, you can leave a message on my talk page, or even send me an e-mail. I just want to assure you that you're not in disgrace! :-) AnnH ^(talk) 23:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; thanks for the "heads up" regarding your husband. It's a-OK with me...it's just good to know that we're talking about two individuals here, and not sockpuppets. As you can see, we've had some issues lately. Happy editing! KHM03 00:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA, I'm very sorry if I offended you. I assure you it was not my intention. I have replied more fully here. I can only assure you again that nobody thought you had done anything wrong, and nobody requested a usercheck on you. I hope you'll stay around at Wikipedia, and I want to wish you a very happy and safe pregnancy. AnnH ^(talk) 01:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA, I don't know from sockpuppets; to be honest, I'm surprised that you weren't first confused with User:Sophia.

This is somewhat off-topic, but I couldn't let your comment on KHM03's talkpage pass without comment. You said, "Whatever the christian view of the wife as a chattel of the husband..." Well, let me assure you that not all Christians believe that. In my opinion it comes from taking Ephesians 5:22 ("Wives, submit to your husbands...") out of context. Paul's argument starts with "Submit to one another" in the previous verse. The summation is in verse 33: "Each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." It's about mutual love and respect, not "chattel." (Both quotes are from the NIV.) archola 03:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sophia (if you don't mind my continuing to type it that way),

let me assure you that I don't want to drive you away (and I don't think others want to either). There has been some confusion regarding The Shriek but neither you nor your husband have done anything faulty. Despite our differences, I think highly of you and respect you and your views and especially your courageous post (saying that you didn't know before you had a certain view ...).

You needn't think of being lumped together with Giovanni & Co. - he didn't just disagree with others (which is legitimate) but aggresively tried to push his view into the article by all legal and illegal means. He was blocked because of the latter behaviour. Your behaviour didn't resemble his at all.

And yes, I agree with what Archola said above - it is mutual.

All the best for the growing up of your third one.

Cheers, Str1977 11:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear SOPHIA. I saw your post on the Christianity talk page, saying that the sockpuppet allegation will be permanently in the history of your husband's page. Using my admin powers, I have removed it from the history. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. I think everyone has made it clear that there's no cloud hanging over you. Nor was there ever one. Because of Giovanni's behaviour — aggressively edit warring, and getting support from newly-registered users, whose only purpose on Wikipedia seemed to be to support him, all new accounts which had turned up on the Christianity page to support him were checked. You were not checked. You showed up in the results simply because you used the same IP address as one of Giovanni's supporters. KHM03, Str1977, and I have all tried to show that we respect you, and do not even remotely equate your behaviour with that of Giovanni and his socks. There is a huge difference between you simply not mentioning that you were married to another user (who did not club together with you to revert or give misleading appearances of consensus), and the rather shabby, underhand behaviour of Giovanni and his socks, who set up an elaborate pretence of not being connected to each other. Please understand that Giovanni is in trouble for his behaviour, not for his POV. Sorry for misunderstanding the reference to the coming child. Regards, AnnH ^(talk) 11:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In the middle

Gator requested I examine some edits and I noticed that you and another user, TheShriek had been identified as using the same IP and were editing the same article. Personally, I don't care if you and this other user are one and the same or indeed husband and wife...all I care about is articles being overrun by folks that are using sockpuppet accounts to make the appearance of building concensus or in an effort to circumvent 3RR. Unrelated to yu apparently is another user that has created perhaps 5 different accounts and they all edit the same articles you do...hence some people's confusion. All I did was inform Gator that you and this other user do share an IP...and I have to take your word that you are two different people. Let me know if there is anything else I can do for you.--MONGO 09:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"as people like him are so sure they are right it will get to nasty to spend much time with them" = personal attack. Enjoy your break. I look forward to your return.Gator (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If I misinterpreted, I'm sorry, but when you referred to "him" I assumed ou were referring to me and when you said it gets nasty spending tie with "thenm" I assumed I was included in "them." It sounds like you're sayign that "things" get nasty when I'm around....still sounds like an attack, but I'll assume good faith and take your word on it. Sorry if misunderstood and I won't be removing that comment. I've never done that before. You were the first. Congrats. That says more about the gravity of the comment I think.

Look, I do want to make up, (despite Rob's mocking remarks on your talk page (a true example of troling and incivility by the way) so don't leave and I'm willing to let bygones be bygones and start from a clean slate. Come on. You game?Gator (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies.

In clearing you and User:TheShriek of the allegation being sockpuppets of Giovanni33, who has been causing many problems, I caused you both further problems since some users took it upon themselves to slap 'this user is a sockpuppet' stickers on userpages. For this, I fully apologise. Absent proof of wrongdoing, using multiple user accounts is permitted even if you were NOT two different people, and it is definitely not wikipedia policy that other users should take it upon themselves to replace your user pages with sockpuppet notices. I regret that the poison of other users using multiple accounts for ill ends spread out over you. —Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 01:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:FAITH

Apart from WP:SOCK another even more fundamental policy here is WP:FAITH. I have no doubt that editors genuinely believed you to be a sockpupet. They were wrong, and they ought to apologise. However, you are not doing yourself any favours by running round shouting to everyone who'll listen that you're being persecuted. WP:COOL, - stay cool. Stand back a bit and try to get on with people. — Dunc|☺ 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying not to be confrontational, and I think you ought to try that approach too. People are only human, they make mistakes. So please, WP:COOL. — Dunc|☺ 09:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please take a moment...

Because you have been involved in the Talk:Jesus conflict, I would humbly request that you view this section on Rob Steadman's talk page concerning the recent war that has transpired. I do ask that you do not edit or add to / add comment to this material for the sake of clarity and conciseness. You are free to leave any comments on my talk page if you so desire. Thank you. --Avery W. Krouse 00:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"You cannot claim a right that you are not prepared to grant to others." I love this quote! My goal all along has been to promote civility and equal rights, although I admit I have been as clouded as anyone else by my own subjective perceptions, hence my need to step back a bit and clear my head. Once we have civility, and if you decide to return, I look forward to working with you.

I'm basically a Perotite: I think we should all stop bickering, lift up the hood of the car and get to work. I'm tired of fighting against both sides, even when it's indirect. May peace and civility reign. Arch O. La 23:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear from you! My own psychosocial analysis was a good faith attempt to understand Rob based on what he has said. I'm sorry if he was offended; on the Christian side there were those who felt I was being too sympathetic to him. Like I said, caught in the middle. I think Rob's beef is more with people like User:Jason Gastrich than with Christianity in general. By the way, Gastrich has had stronger action taken against him than Rob has. I support this even though I am a Christian. I hope Rob has the wisdom not to go as far as Gastrich has.

I understand Rob's frustration that few seem to be listening to him. I have done my best to separate his objective points from his subjective values that clash with mine, and I've been trying to get others to do the same. Rob is right that he is marginalized on the Jesus page, but there are other areas where Christians are just as marginalized (one need look no further than Gastrich). I think we need more moderate secularists to balance the debate, and I think Giovanni fills that role. There are those of us who affirm the truth on both sides. It all comes down to the adage that truth cannot contradict truth (that is NPOV), but perceptions of truth can and often do contradict (that is POV). Of course, that's just my viewpoint ;)

Cheers, Arch O. La 00:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My father was color blind, so I appreciate the analogy. I have read Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World and I recognized the parallels to the Bright website Rob pointed us to. There are also others trying to reign "our" side in--including a couple of conservatives that have given each other Alito barnstars. There are also those besides myself who miss your wisdom, SOPHIA (which is, after all, what "Sophia" means). Arch O. La 00:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to say that I see nothing wrong with Bright in and of itself, what bothers me is lack of communication and apparent intolerance (and the political and broader sociological consequences of the same). Of course, religious experience is experience and thus by definition subjective--you do not experience my subjectivity, and I do not experience yours. As a Lutheran I believe that faith is itself a gift of God (single predestination), so beyond expressing my beliefs it's not up to me anyway ;) Beyond that, it all becomes rather philosophical. As I have mentioned today, I and much of Christianity have been influenced by Neoplatonism by identifying the spiritual with Plato's idealism (although this has become somewhat buried, the subtext is still there).

I find C. S. Lewis and especially Mere Christianity to be a good counterpoint to Carl Sagan. Arch O. La 22:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, we've both read both Sagan and Lewis and judged how well both authors correlate with our own experiences. (This is starting to sound technical). I am a genetic Lutheran, so the Force runs strong in my family. I leave it as an exercise to the reader whether the Force is the Holy Spirit or merely psychosocial. ; Arch O. La 23:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and welcome back! I had, however, fallen into the trap of playing the middle against both sides, expressing an opinion when I really wonder, what's the point? But welcome back. Arch O. La 23:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I help?

Hi, SOPHIA, I see that you're still here at Wikipedia, and I want to assure you that we would all welcome you back at Christianity and that your integrity was never questioned in the slightest by any of us. As you know, I removed the sockpuppet notice from the history of your husband's user page, by deleting the entire page and restoring just the last version.

We do feel that there's a considerable difference between a husband and wife who simply do not happen to mention their relationship, while editing as two separate individuals with usernames, and a husband and wife who set up an elaborate pretence of not knowing each other, constantly revert to each other's version, follow each other around to vote, and make claims that there is consensus. Please believe that this has nothing to do with persecution of someone who doesn't share our POV. I have never met Str1977 or KHM03, and was completely unaware of their existence when I first joined Wikipedia. But if a sockcheck showed a connection between Str and me, and I then claimed that I was married to him, after having sent him public messages saying that I don't know what his English accent is like or asking him if he likes cucumbers, I would expect KHM03 to be very disappointed. If I accidentally signed something while forgetting that I was logged on as KHM03 (having pretended to have no connection to him), I would expect Str to be appalled. This is not a judgment of POVs but rather of means used to push POVs — which is why we still respect and trust you.

I'm deeply sorry that you felt affected by the suspicion with which we viewed Giovanni. And I urge you again to let me know if I can do anything to help. AnnH ♫ 02:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back...

To the land of the living! It's good to see you back on the Jesus pages. I myself am going to tear the pages off of my watchlist and leave it for a while. I wish you better luck than I've had!

And always remember: Nothing is ever as bad as a public restroom seems. --Avery W. Krouse 23:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article Talk Page

Dear Sophia:

It was not you I was referring to. It was several other editors trying to overcome a previous vote, not through discussion, but through pronouning all other opinion irrelevant, and, when on a Saturday night, no one responded, try to get their version installed.

What neither of these editors seemed to have noticed is that I voted against the phrase they objected to in the first vote on the matter. The confusion that followed made it difficult for me to say that I didn't mind your version at all.

It is tough to get two sides, intent on insulting each other, to calm down and follow the rules.

Sorry for any confusion in this matter. --CTSWyneken 10:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No matter what other editors think, talk pages are intended to be semi-private. If they intend to make anything of what they read there, they should say something first before going off.

I am trying to make peace on the page. It is difficult when one or other editor throw gasoline on the fire. It doesn't help when some try to provoke Rob and Rob provoke them. It would also help, if he would notice that I talked several people out of filing an RfC on him.

If he will stop attacks on editors, scholars and try to achieve consensus on edits it would go along way. He has had some success when he has done this. A little bit of scholarly effort would help me, at least, to work with him, rather than having to clean up after a mess he's helped to incite. --CTSWyneken 20:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article Vote

I think we're close to a resolution. There's a vote on that includes your proposal. Come and vote. --CTSWyneken 11:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

And now they are trying to fix a vote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:StanZegel#Jesus_Article_Vote Robsteadman 13:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

From Robsteadman's talk page

Thought it best to continue here, rather than there.

I appreciate your thoughts, SOPHIA. Rational.

Yes, if someone has never had an experience of the divine, they are certainly free to draw whatever conclusions they desire. But to say, "I've never had that experience, therefore it doesn't exist" is a far different matter. Hardly humble. It kind of sets the self up as an absolute. You said that, "...for someone who has had not supernatural experiences atheism is the honest description of their world view - they have no knowledge of a deity." But agnosticism means "no knowledge". That's humble...to say, "I really don't know, one way or the other." That's different from both theism (which has strong faith that the divine exists) and atheism (which has strong faith that the divine does not exist). But both theists and atheists have a POV; neither is neutral or unbiased; both have strong convictions about something.

As far as environmentalism and Christianity, that's another issue. My own view is that we are stewards of God's creation and he will hold us accountable for each species we've destroyed, etc. KHM03 20:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we all need to be better stewards. SOPHIA, I just want to say that I was very flattered with your description of me on CTSWynekan's page. KHM03 and Rob are still debating the definition of faith, but faith and rationality is an issue (and article) unto itself. As for myself, I have recognized Rob's position on the issue, and as I have told KHM03, I find it fruitless to continue to debate Rob on that point. Arch O. La 20:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Historicity and Historical Jesii

As I told drboisclair, I'm kind of a weird Lutheran. I'm one of the people who feels that looking at different viewpoints strengthens rather than challenges my faith, because it helps to separate truth from supposition. I see those who question the New Testament as no different than those who question extrabiblical sources. I hold the NT to be truth, and the Gospels of Thomas and Mary (for example) to be myth. Others apply a different method and come to different conclusions. Whether or not God chooses to reveal Himself is His will. Outside of religion, I follow Socrates who was always challenging people as to whether they really knew what they thought they knew. Despite accusations of impiety against Socrates, I am still pious ;)

From what I've seen, the Historicity article was forked from the Jesus article and was basically an examination of textual evidence before the article was renamed. The Historical Jesus article places this into a larger Judaic, Hellenic and Roman context. I admit this is confusing; I wasn't there when the decisions were made, so I can follow this no further than to ask the people who were involved.

As for the fuss this would make...at this time it looks like anything will raise a fuss. Even fine distinctions between "majority," "large majority" and "vast majority" (all ordinal measurements, and thus open to interpretation) have raised major fusses. Haldrick has pointed out that "historicity" has a broader meaning than "existance," but you run the risk of infuriating people who do not realize the distinction. Arch O. La 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of Vandalism

I am appalled with you. Utterly disgusted.

First of all, you of all people should know better than to throw around accusations of policy breaking because of IP addresses, you who was recently and unjustly accused of sockpuppeting because of your IP address.

Second, Deskana has never shown any form of vandalism on any user page or article to date. He has been one of the most civil editors we have had in this whole idiotic conflict.

And now you're tossing him to the administrators because of an episode of anon. vandalism that just happened to come from the same address. Have you ever been to a college? Ever been inside a student computer lab? I know nothing about his college but suffice it to say that there is every possibility of someone else at that college pulling this stunt, and even from the exact same computer. Deskana could have easily brought this stupid war up in class and someone decide to go take a look for themselves.

Right now, you and Rob both need a good dose of civility and faith in your fellow editors. Take a moment and reevaluate your claims before you start defaming another editor. --Avery W. Krouse 18:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I noticed that both Robsteadman and Garglebutt had their pages vandalized recently. Don't know about others; cannot say whom the vandals are. This metaphorical hobbit is still trying to avoid the Battle of the Five Armies; of course, Bilbo failed to do so. And this magic ring of invisibility may be tainted…Arch O. La 18:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I say this, "SOPHIA can attest to the injustices that such assumptions can create" in the context of being supportive of nailing Deskana if he is up to no good and you put this [5] on my talk page? You've gotta be kidding. I was expecting a thank you note for helping you out when some people (see above) aren't supporting you and I get that? Read my previosu edit, SOPHIA. I beleive that if he is the same person, that he shoud be blocked. We jsut ened to confirm that is all. We all agree that it should be confirmed. Please start assuming good faith, because I'm trying really hard to make amends with you you, that have an ally and you're making yourself look really really bad by lashing out like this. Please. I'm begging you. Start assuming good faith. It will lead to good places with me. I promise.Gator (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well if you're interested you can see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism. But please, remain civil. Deskana (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Hobbit and the Fellowship of the Pets

Thank you for your kind remarks. I have, actually, created a special section for you on my main talk page ("Sophistry") because I wanted to demonstrate that it possible for people with different viewpoints to communicate and even cooperate. (We also seem to be talking a lot lately. ;) However, it looks like the recent arrival of Raisinman is going to complicate things. Perhaps the Eagles are coming.... Arch O. La 02:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC) PS: I did raise the issue of the confusion b/w "Historical Jesus" and "Historicity of Jesus" on both pages on Feb. 18. However, there has been very little discussion (I just saw a remark from Haldrick today on the historical page). Arch O. La

Jesus Article Talk Page, part 2

Our hopefully last vote on this paragraph is underway. --CTSWyneken 11:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Go commando" was a joke—I don't want it to become my new nickname! It looks to me like people are starting to move past binarity. Oh, and KHM03 and Alienus have been investigating Raisinman. Arch O. La 18:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We're reasonably certain that he's the editor formerly known as User:Kdbuffalo, who has (at times) been very confrontational and controversial, advocating quite harshly a particularly bizarre form of fundamentalist Christianity (see Biblical scientific foreknowledge and its talk page for a taste of his actions). "Ken" (as he's gone by in the past...if Raisinman is him) shouldn't be too difficult to handle if we all just keep cool and remember that he's a unique POV, different from any currently involved in dialogue. KHM03 18:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I have tried to be humorous lately--more accurately absurdist since I think the debate itself has become absurd. I've just posted a remark on "basic beliefs" so we can get past using words like "faith" and "dogma." I'm only an amateur student of philosophy, so you would think that more people would realize this! Ultimately faith is simply the sense of the Divine. This is subjective, but so was Descartes' sense of self, which BTW some sociologists have deconstructed. As for the other suspicious user, all I know is that Avery Krause and CTSWynekan have communicated about this. Arch O. La 18:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The voting has collapsed, and consensus seems impossible. What do we do now? I've suggested that we seek outside help, but Is there any outside party that all sides can agree on? Arch O. La 23:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA, some centrists are getting together to promote cooperation. See User_talk:Jim62sch#Love_Your_Latin and the responses on the appropriate talk pages. You're free to join if you wish. Arch O. La 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Rob has...been convicted of sockpuppetry, as you know, and at least two of us (me and Gator) are uncomfortable with this. Avery has opened a discussion at Talk:Jesus about what to do next. I thought that you should know. Arch O. La 05:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Addendum: And now Avery's passing around invitations to the "Christian Cabal." I can just imagine how Rob will take that. *(sigh) Arch O. La 06:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You are hereby invited by the Grand Poobah Avery W. Krouse to announce your membership in the Wikipedia Christian Cabal! Please add your name to the members list. If userboxes are your thing, you may add {{User:Averykrouse/Christian Cabal Box}} to your userpage to declare your allegiance! The Grand Poobah salutes you! --Grand Poobah Avery W. Krouse (You're more than welcome too!)

I just think that Rob should be givne the same opportunity to defend himself as Deskana. If Deskana was never told that the reason he was suspected of vandalism was becuase the vnadalism came from the same address, he would have never had a chance. Rob just may ahve a good faith reasons why the checkuser result showed whatever it showed. I just want to be fair here. We don't need IP addresses, just basic info so Rob can offer an explanation. He seems very emphatic.Gator (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gator. It seems entirely plausbile that people at the school he teaches at might use the computers to edit the Wikipedia article about their teacher, then seeing that he is involved in the Jesus article, begin to edit that too... I discussed this more at User talk:Robsteadman. It is also entirely plausible that he is guilty, but without more details it might be difficult to tell for ourselves. Failing that, we should trust the admins. Wikipedia works, on the whole. Deskana (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And I agree with Gator and Deskana. So, now there's three people. Rob has enough reason to appeal if he so desires, but whether deserved or not, Rob's reputation has been sullied. Rob needs an advocate. Arch O. La 14:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, as a member of the AMA, I would happily take that on if Rob would like. I know he doesn't like me, but I think that will make a more effective advocate. I don't really know what we could do other than try and clear this up and salvage his reputation. That might be enough. I have an idea that amy work, but we'll let Rob decide if he';d like me or someone else to pursue answers so he can be given the same oppoertunity as Deskana to explain himself.Gator (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Breath of fresh air

Hi SOPHIA. Thanks for your kind comments. I'll keep in touch with the argument and perhaps I will return to the debate. It is futile though isn't it really? We shouldn't give up I suppose, but do you really expect to persuade christians to even understand the concept of a NPOV on religious arguments? We do have different thought processes but christian's religious zeal means that they are probably incapable of understanding where we come from. Correct use of the scientific method is designed to remove our inbuilt bias, and we are trained to see and understand that, but most christians certainly aren't trained to see theirs. One thing is for sure, ranting and raving like some do gets us nowhere! I'll keep visiting the jesus/christianity pages as you suggest, but I'm not keen to join in the kind of reverting wars that seem to be the standard of debate on many sites. Maybe things will improve though - we'll see. Once again, thanks for your kind words, and I'm sure that our paths will cross many times in the future. :-) Adrian Baker 00:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Circular centrists

Permission granted. Arch O. La 19:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Well, I see where you signed the subpage. I wasn't sure whether or not there was supposed to be pledging and an induction ceremony first ;) But, I'm waiting to hear about Jim's other ideas, and of course for CTSWyneken this is his busy season. Arch O. La | TCF member 19:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you update your user page! 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 01:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it always like this on these pages

I've only been here since late August, but it seems to me that "All these "socks", spurious accounts, edit wars and page protections" have gotten much worse in the last month or two. Once more I turn to scripture: "Without wood a fire goes out; without gossip a quarrel dies down" (Proverbs 26:20 NIV). That said, there's got to be a way to pull the wood out of the fire... Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting

Hi Sophia; I noticed you asked about reverting on the notice board. You may have already figured it out, but here's a link to Help:Reverting. Best, Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)