User talk:Sophia/archive5

I saw your message and that fact that an admin gave Al a perm community ban. Shoudln't there be a discussion and consensus before a perm community ban is effected? Also, should we not consider the merits of his edits, even if they are from illegal puppets? We don't really hunt down puppets of others unless they they are doing something very bad like vandalism, etc. Al's edits are good and helping WP. If Al was given a year he would be welcomed back after "time served," but there is no reason to bother with his puppets if they are not doing anything terrible to WP, and esp. not use that as an excuse to arbitrarily issue a community ban to Al.Giovanni33 22:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alienus"

Yeah, you're right. I left the admin a message anyway.Giovanni33 04:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

farham is welcomed to Earth "eh! what"

Have you seen this story, "Wikipedia founder plans rival": http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e62ce8a4-5d3e-11db-9d15-0000779e2340.html Giovanni33 07:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archola

No, I haven't heard from Archie in awhile. I've been in other areas of the wiki than he usually haunts so I didn't even notice he wasn't around. Did any of your emails bounce? --CTSWyneken^(talk) 09:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your discussion, and I thought i'd just say, I spotted some of Archola's edits recently on the ChristWiki site, though their still a few days old. Homestarmy 12:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just busy...I don't think I got your e-mail, though.

I thought upu might like to know thqt Pluto is up for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fighting vandalism

I just opened two pages from the list of most revised articles and saw that you had just reverted both. :) Your edit history speaks highly of your efforts in upholding the site - keep fighting the good fight! --Kizor 00:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity of Jesus

So, ya gonna join us. Please??? Jim62sch 21:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bunch of books to read as well -- some day I'll get caught up...no I won't. I might get that first one you mentioned, it looks pretty good. Have you read this one [1]? Jim62sch 10:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the advice

on beating my head against the brick wall on Christianity. Partly, I enjoy seeing the extreme measures that other editors will go to in order to justify their POV. Partly, I have some unquenchable hope for human potential and can't stop thinking that in some small way I'll get through. Partly, I can't stand backing down to people who are being unfair. Pagels I've heard of but haven't read. Thompson I've never heard of before. Jonathan Tweet 14:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a kindness if you could drop a comment on the Talk:Christianity page saying something (anything) in my support. I don't expect you to embroil yourself in it, but I'd like my detractors to know that not everyone thinks I'm crazy. Jonathan Tweet 00:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the Jesus articles!

The phrasing "small minority" of the nonexistence hypothesis has come up again-- cf Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Small_Minority, Also Talk:Jesus#small_minority.3F. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Articles (and I'm not talking about my gardener)

Thanks for the old article. It was very nicely done, compared to the mangled article. I'm pretty cocky, so I'm going to give it a try. There are a few people out there that will stand up for verifiability and NPOV (but I noticed the Christian thought police interpret NPOV to mean "nothing against the truth of the Bible")Orangemarlin 23:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia, let's try to improve the Jesus as Myth article. I don't think it is right that it is getting in a battle between Christians and so-called atheists (their term not mine). It is merely an article describing the myth, not the end of Christianity. It's time to do to these articles what I've had to deal with whenever we try to write an article about Evolution or the such. Orangemarlin 04:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when are you going to do the big revert. It's time. The article is going nowhere. Orangemarlin 02:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I knew that my edit summary was set by editing that way, but hadn't thought about how it seemed to others. I only recently started messing around with using popups. Thanks very much for the heads-up on that, I will be more careful about it in the future. Pastordavid 13:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sophia!

Thought you might find this review interesting. [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ^^James^^ (talk • contribs) 10:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reverting your earlier edit

Hi Sophia, I've reverted your edit of my contribution. I felt that what I wrote balanced that section and more accurately reflected the scholarly consensus. The previous version largely concentrated on the 'nay sayers' and only referenced one contrary view. The book by Komozeewski et al references many sources including Robin Lane Fox, Ronald H Nash, Bruce M Metzeger and many others in support of the quote I used which is essentially a fair summary of these views. Hope this explains why I made the edits I did. Mercury543210 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

My first barnstar. I'm in tears. Orangemarlin 19:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicene Creed

Thanks, Sophia, for your reverting the removal of the Creed from the Christianity page. I know that you advocate the removal of it, which makes your stepping against unilateral actions and for a cooperative, editing of the page all the more valuable. (And BTW, I don't hesitate to tell you that I am in the end not that bent on retaining the creed if it is removed by consensus and the right reasons. I just think that other things are more important and that no one should force this on the article). So three loud CHEERS to an honourable woman. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Christianity talk page

Hi, Sophia. I saw the post to which you refer, and was going to post something even before you posted on my talk page. Ironic that you were accused of hating Christians. I don't think there's any atheist who has gained so much respect as you have from the Christian editors for fairness. Hopefully what happened in the last few hours was just that people got a bit over-excited, and will calm down after a good night's sleep, or a cup of tea, or whatever they need. I can't even console myself by saying that everything tonight was "the atheists' fault"! ! ! Musical L inguist 01:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to echo Musical Linguist and Str1977 above. Regardless what some editors have said negatively about you, you have been extremely civil, respectful and helpful not only in the Nicene Creed debate, but basically in all of your edits here at wikipedia. I just wanted to give you a word of encouragement and support. Keep up the good work!-Andrew c 03:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment and the background info. However, I must correct you. Recently, I came out of a content dispute not feeling good about the result. I have been involved in heated conflict that has affected me emotionally (if interested, see Talk:Stillbirth and Talk:Fetus or my rant). However, I try my best to keep the peace, and I guess that goes to show that while neither you nor I are perfect, we can still be respected and valued wikipedians. Anyway, onward!-Andrew c 16:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Req for Comment

You are more than welcome. As you said on the article's talk page, WP only works when it is a collaboration. Glad to help out. I've watchlisted the article to keep an extra set of eyes on it for a while. -- Pastordavid 23:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for your level head and participation on Christianity. Thank you also for commenting on the request to unprotect the page. Vassyana 18:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:SOPHIA/Jesus-Myth

Just to let you know that I edited the page slightly to remove it fron the categories. This is not an comment on the validity of the work. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley Award

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward Vassyana 09:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

Curious

If I were to nominate you to become an admin, would you accept? I strongly feel that you would be an excellant admin and are the kind of user that Wikipedia could use with the priveleges. Please let me know if you would accept such a nomination. Vassyana 11:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quite understand the reasons you'd decline. If you ever change your mind, please let me know and I'll quite happily nominate you. Until then, keep up the wonderful contributions! :o) Vassyana 17:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unworthy antics re the 747 Gambit

Hi Sophia. I'm sorry your antics re the 747 Gambit are unworthy of you. First you try to stealth-delete. You lose that argument. So you list it on AfD. You are losing that argument. So now while an AfD debate is going in you are editing the article to make it worse. This is not on! Let others decide on the vaildity of your POV. We are trying to improve Wikipedia, not shield one of your gurus from criticism. Are Dawkins's ideas really so feeble that you have to prevent any serious examination of them from reaching the eyes of sensitive Wikipedia users? NBeale 22:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sophia - what fun, eh! I'm beginning to feel left out and unloved. Why hasn't he left any nice comments on my talk page? He seems to be scattering poisonous rumours about you and me everywhere else! Seriously, I think the behaviour you documented at User:NBeale#Gambits may be worth reporting to an admin and seeking a review. What do you think? Is there really any point? Snalwibma 23:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia, I have crossed paths with you through a few RfCs and other places, and noticed your comments on NBeales talk page. I have a hard time believing, despite NBeale's insistance, that you have edited in anything but a responsible manner -- indeed, I respect your ability to remain NPOV when dealing with contentious issues. That said, I invite you to have a look at my comment on NBeale's talk page, in response to a note on my talk. -- Pastordavid 02:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an effort to improve the article to merit retention?

An unusual number of individuals who feel that the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit article should be deleted and turned into a redirect have jumped in and started making major edits to this article. As you are among the individuals who fit this description, I am trying to understand if this is indeed a good faith effort to improve the article so that it meets your personal standards for retention? If it is, why don't we try to find a consensus as to what should stay here and what shouldn't in order to satisfy retention. If this is not an effort to improve the article that would lead to changed votes, it seems hard to understand the sudden burst of interest in editing this article. Alansohn 07:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to intrude; but whats up with the Dawkin's bashing? Please read the entry on H. Allen Orr NBeal created. A grossly disproportional amount of text is devoted to bashing Dawkins. Is that the claim to fame of Orr. I'm guessing not; yet NBeal makes it the primary focus of the entry. I've noticed (SOPHIA) you have criticized NBeal on similar charges. Read the Orr... it is so over the top it is bond to touch a nerve. --Random Replicator 19:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the award, and the very kind description "shining example of NPOV" -- I love it! :) --Merzul 20:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant I love the description, not the article... In case it seemed I'm a bit too proud ;) --Merzul 20:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 04:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding NBeale

Unfortunately, I'm very busy this weekend, so I can't help you guys thinking out what to do, but I just want to point out a few options before an RfC. The first is obviously taking it up with him personally, I mean so far we have just discussed content, but we need to make it clear that his behaviour is hurting people's feelings. The second thing is to perhaps ask for intervention by some reasonable Christian editors, such as Pastor David. Finally, before moving to RfC, we can also post a polite complain at WP:X, which he is a member of. The point is that he creates very sloppy articles dumping huge quotations on the page, and when we get upset, we get accused of POV-pushing, censorship, and what not. He treats other people like pawns in his game to promote his Christian views, and yet Christianity does not teach that the ends justifies the means. Honestly, I don't think God really would care what Wikipedia says about Richard Dawkins, but I think God very much would care about our behaviours and motives. Thus, I think we can appeal to reasonable Christians to talk sense into him. --Merzul 09:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At times it's quite fun thinking of ways to counter NBeale's "arguments". For example, the debate on the AfD relating to List of FRSs with public religious stances has made me do quite a bit of thinking, and work out a way of going beyond "this is obvious nonsense" to an explanation of precisely how and why it is nonsense. Coming up with an explanation that will convince NBeale is probably beyond me, as we seem to inhabit completely different worlds, but the attempt is quite stimulating, and the exercise in clarifying my own thinking is definitely good for me. Only up to a point, however. It is extremely wearing dealing with all the garbage he scatters around him, and his contributions are a real nuisance. I would classify them into (a) relatively harmless nonsense that is in breach of WP:OR, WP:ATT, WP:NPOV etc (e.g. Argument from love) but probably doesn't too much damage because who's going to read that stuff anyway; (b) adulatory articles about his heroes (e.g. John Polkinghorne), which may however contain some needless and sneaky swipes at hate-figures such as Dawkins; (c) articles like the religious FRS list, which are probably specifically designed to push his POV (whether consciously or otherwise I don't know), and, following the same agenda, the creation of articles about people like H. Allen Orr in order to enlist them as pawns in NBeale's own battle with the forces of darkness; (d) nasty spiteful additions to articles about people he doesn't like, clear breaches of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP - check out the edit history of Richard Dawkins and The God Delusion - which are a problem both because of blatant POV-pushing and because he seems to think that the more facts, footnotes and references he can cram in the better (I don't know if he does this specifically in order to degrade the readability of the article and put people off from reading it, or because he genuinely thinks that a bloated fact-stuffed article is the best sort). The other big problem is the way in which he reacts to a challenge. It rapidly becomes very personal, and before you know where you are he is spreading malicious rumours about those who disagree with him, scattering his comments in all sorts of inappropriate places, not to mention sending messages to those he thinks are his allies, trying to persuade them to enter a debate on his side. Your documentation of what he did when the 747 article was AfDed should be kept as evidence, and used in any future dispute. Clear abuse of wikipedia process. In summary (and sorry to have been so long-winded) I think we have a case of very determined POV-pushing, and/or an inability to distinguish between objective truth and personal opinion. I think I assume good faith - in other words I think it's a case of genuine inability to see the other point of view, and a genuine belief that his own outlook is the same as objective truth, rather than a deliberate and underhand attempt to subvert. Either way, it is very time-consuming to deal with, and if it is unconscious it is probably going to be harder to dissuade him. Like you, I find myself in danger of devoting all my wikipedia time to protecting it from the ravages of NBeale. I think this is important, actually, because if the project is to have any long-term value it must not be allowed to sink into that sort of mess. But I agree with Merzul - the best start might be either to talk to him directly or maybe to have a word with a few other christian contributors whom he respects. I think a full-frontal attack (which is how an RfC would be interpreted) may be counterproductive. I think I'd be in favour of a personal approach to the man himself - and I'll now go away and spend a bit of time thinking precisely what I might say, in case you agree with this approach. Snalwibma 13:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply here and hope you both see this. The reason I thought of an RfC is that NBeale puts wikipedia in WP:BLP problems frequently (particularly the Dawkins bashing) and this is just not on. As for the personal attacks, I don't actually care that much as the way he words them always makes him look worse than whoever he is gunning for at the time and too much trouble is caused here by people huffing and puffing over hurt feelings. My experience with asking Christian editors to deal with one of their own is that they are incredibly mild (just look at the responses on his talk page) and ineffective. However I do have a lot of respect for PastorDavid and feel he may just be the person to "coach" NBeale who does actually make some good contributions. I will muse on and maybe ask PastorDavid for advice. Sophia 14:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you talk to PastorDavid and I try sending NBeale a message directly? Yes, you're right, he does in fact make some good contributions, and hsi energy and enthusiasm needs channeling rather than stopping. My summary above is a bit overdone! Snalwibma 14:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friends, relations, and supporters

Indeed! I was watching those too. There was previously a "sockpuppet" challenge to at least one of those friends-in-need, and it was roundly rebutted. So I don't think they are socks, but I guess they are friends who are called upon (outside WP) for support when it is thought to be needed. In the unlikely event of the AfD not succeeding, I am very happy to call "foul" and produce the evidence. Incidentally, have you seen this? Snalwibma 19:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia, I jumped into your discussion on Snalwibma's talk page, as I immediately reacted to seeing Laura again. Anyway, it seems NBeale's articles are everywhere. If only he focused his energy on completing the articles he starts instead of spawning more pointless titles. --Merzul 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to him, see User talk:NBeale#My complaints about your behaviour. I am of course only speaking for myself on that post, except in the end I mention that others also feel his energy is misdirected. --Merzul 22:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NBeale -- RFC??

Hello SOPHIA! Perhaps this could serve as central point for a discussion about whether we start an RfC on NBeale, you can now see I have warned him twice, once on his talk page, and once on the H. Allen Orr page! He doesn't listen to me. I mean an RFC isn't necessarily to prove that he is wrong, perhaps I'm going too far, so I think community input would be a good idea. --Merzul 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello y'all. Not meaning to intrude ... still have some of these pages watchlisted. Perhaps mediation - either formal or informal (through the cabal or AMA) - would be better than RfC in this case. In my experience, RfCs expect the dispute to be resolved by the individual seeming the comments from the community. Mediation, however, makes concrete recommendations for actions to resolve the dispute. -- Pastordavid 19:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, please do intrude, you are the perfect person to help us with these issues, perhaps you would be willing to mediate? I will listen to any advice you have to give, and I'm not at all assuming that I'm right on these issues. Your decision would even be binding for me, as I trust your judgement completely. I don't know if it would satisfy the others, but this would satisfy me. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I thought RFC is something you do before mediation, it looked like that on the navigation bar :) --Merzul 19:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. If you put your effort into postive contributions rather than trying to undo other people's work perhaps Wikipedia would advance faster. Just a thought :-) NBeale 20:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to rethink what positive and negative really means. Some of your edits might have +353 next to their diffs, but inserting quotations from whatever notable source saying "It is extraordinary in this day and age that anyone can still believe in such a cruel, heartless and frankly improbable figure as..." -- this is not a positive edit. You can rationalize all you want that this is a clever philosophical point, but somewhere in your heart you must realize that in the end you are inserting very nasty words about a living person, and when coupled with your insensitivity for the context, this is a truly negative edit: The bio page did not include Dawkins's quotation about God being cruel, so the "witty philosophical point" is entirely lost, and all that remains is grave violation of WP:BLP. Do you really think that by inserting such nasty comments about Dawkins you are doing Christianity a favour??? Why don't you teach your faith by example and thus prove Dawkins is wrong. Richard Swinburne began his review of Dawkins saying "I thank Mr. Dawkins for discussing some of my ideas" and then he calmly responds to the criticism, and nowhere are there any irrelevant personal attacks. Instead, you prefer to mine quotations picking the most vitriolic ad hominem arguments you can find. This was particularly disturbing in the case of H. Allen Orr, a person I have come to like perhaps even more than Dawkins. He is defending Religion from the attack by Dawkins, and defending Science from the attack by Intelligent Design, and yet your bio page gave a one-sided Dawkins-bashers view of the man, by not focusing on his career as a biologist, not focusing on his well-rounded views on NOMA, but just dumping again not even the more interesting refutations of Dawkins, but the ad-hominem attacks. And after all this, you don't understand why we revert your "positive" edits??? Stop inserting derogatory material about Dawkins all over Wikipedia, and we will stop our negative edits. --Merzul 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I have said what I have to say. I support an RFC/USER being filed against NBeale, and I also support an informal mediation lead by Pastor David, if all involved parties accept that. This really has to stop. NBeale responses by calling this censorship is not at all encouraging. SOPHIA, it's your call, I support any decision you make. --Merzul 21:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(SOPHIA, please answer here so we don't get cross-over edits, I'm watching this page. And this way other involved parties can also follow it more easily. There are at least 3 more editors who have complained about NBeale's behaviour.) --Merzul 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! I have left a message on Pastordavid's page asking him to check out the Orr article. Lets see what that brings before we go any further. Sophia 22:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'm going to sleep now, so we'll see where we are tomorrow. Good night! :) --Merzul 22:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodnight to you too (we must be on the same time zone!). Sophia 22:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys... Just back from four days away. Picking up the threads again. Delighted to see Pastordavid's involvement, and I hope it is effective. Will continue to watch. The H. Allen Orr article could become the final straw as far as I'm concerned, if he distorts it like that again. Random Replicator makes some good points on the article's talk page. Snalwibma 21:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really must stop trying to censor views you disagree with

Sophia. You really must stop trying to censor views you disagree with. If they are properly refed and reported in an NPOV way and from notable commentators then I'm sorry but even if you and some of your friends don't agree with them they have a right to be represented in WikiPedia. I have seen you do this at least a dozen times and it really should stop. Threatening editors who disagree with you is also not in my view helpful or constructive behaviour. I'm sorry if this upsets you and it is not intended as a personal attack - I know you have made many major positive contributions to Wikipedia as well. But trying to supress true well-refed facts is a waste of your time and everybody else's, and is not what WikiPedia is about in my view. NBeale 20:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my above rant, I strongly object to these accusations of censorship every time somebody is addressing a policy violation. You were told last month:

NBeale, don't accuse me of censorship, ever. I take great offense at that appelation, and consider it a personal attack of the highest order. Ed Poor called me a bitch once, and I minded that about 1/100th of someone accusing me of censorship. Now, a summary should summarise. Your lenghtly essay is more like the slightly condensed version of the book, which is basically a completely non notable book with zero reviews or attention in any form of media whatsoever, outside of the sales pitch on the publisher's website. Put it on your blog, if you have one. It doesn't belong here. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

And you still persist in such accusation whenever anyone raise objections about your edits. --Merzul 20:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to add to the controversy, but there is a big difference between "rasising objections to edits" and "wanting to supress well-refed material"! I also note that the article KC wanted to supress in this instance is now well-established and stable with c31 editors having worked on it and the "completely non-notable" book has 28k ghits and a (favourable) review in New Scientist amongst other places. NBeale 11:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

Sophia, please see the comment on my talk page regarding your current dispute. Thanks, -- Pastordavid 23:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia (and all involved, since the discussion seems centered here), NBeale has agreed to work with me, and I am using the description of the new editor assistance program to describe our work. That said, as I replied to Merzul on my talk page, I don't know that it would be proper for me to comment directly on the Orr article right now. I would suggest putting a note on WikiProject Biography and WP Science and waiting a couple of days, to see if you can get some helpful comments from them. If not, list the article in the Requests for Comment. -- Pastordavid 15:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail coming soon

Hi, Sophia. Thanks for the greetings on my talk page. All is well with me. The house was sold a while back, so things have been a bit stressful lately, even though it wasn't my home. I'll be e-mailing you soon. Hope you had a nice Easter, even though it obviously doesn't mean as much to you as to me. (And, as I once said to KHM03, if I were Pope, I'd make 25 March the most important day of the year, or at the very least would have it in joint first place with Easter!) I think Str and I and KHM and Tom will always think of how decent Sophia is around Easter time (as well as at other times!), for obvious reasons. Musical L inguist 14:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Beale

Sophia, NBeale has attempted to edit this article in keeping with our policies, and has been open about his involvment (note the conversation and tag on the talk page of the article). He has also invited other editors to improve/remove his contributions to the article as necessary. Personally, I think the notability is established in the citations of his publications, books, and positions (although I recognize that notability can be a judgement call at times, and others certianly may disagree). If you have particular concerns about the article, I would invite you to jump in and edit the article or join the conversation on the talk page. While editing one's own biography is frowned upon, it is also a gray area and many notable editors touch up their articles (Elonka Dunin comes to mind as a regular contributor who is involved in her own article) -- I don't think that NBeale has crossed the line on this. -- Pastordavid 17:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fishy friend

Thanks for the revert. That one sure has a fish obsession! CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier

I may possibly have gotten mixed up in the tags, but I had certainly seen both the II article and the II site at the time, and was in doubt about that site as well. I may have seen it wrong, but that's how i saw it. I did do the research, though I might have drawn the wrong conclusions from it. The obvious thing to do is to send it at once to AfD, so others can debate it. I admit my error, even if I myself was clear it was spam and NN, I should have realized that others might have thought differently, and gone directly to AfD. I've just done it. I see someone else has nom II for AfD. The practical qy is in a case like this whether one article is sufficient, and I think one is enough and its II. By the way, the initial discussion there was saying the person listed it because it was challenged, not because he necessarily thought it should be deleted. The process is a discussion, giving opinions. It's supposed to go by who has the best arguments, not who has the most votes. Sorry for the additional unnecessary trouble. DGG 08:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NB

Thanks for your comment. I really am going to do my best to keep away from that particular article, but I am seriously concerned, and it is nothing whatever to do with a vendetta against one individual, or with whether I agree or disagree with his views on various subjects. What I see is someone who either completely fails to grasp what Wikipedia is all about, or who is quite cleverly subverting it for his own ends. I think he sees WP as a kind of extension to his blog, to be used to promote his world view and (most recently) to promote himself. The technique he uses is actually quite clever. It is to create masses of text and embedded references as quickly as possible, to achieve a "well-referenced article" and the illusion of notability before anyone has the chance to object, and then, when they do so object, to carry on piling on the references as a defence against deletion, and simulataneously to accuse critics of censorship, without ever engaging in any discussion about the actual merits of the article or the shape it should take. An added twist is the bootstrap technique. Create another article, link both ways to and from it, and use this as further proof of "notability". All of these techniques have been used in relation to the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit, H. Allen Orr, Nicholas Beale - and now also Militant atheism, which is currently in the let's-see-how-much-well-referenced-cruft-we-can-accumulate-before-anyone-notices-there's-nothing-at-the-heart-of-it phase of development! I still wonder about a RfC. For the moment, though, I think I might just say something like the above to Pastordavid. Snalwibma 09:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, and I wanted to stay away from the Nicholas Beale article, but I get so attracted to controversy that I couldn't help myself. The situation is IMO contrary to the guidelines, so I couldn't give it a rest. But I badly need a wikibreak, I'm not even editing articles I care about, instead I'm almost wikistalking NBeale. This is not good. --Merzul 17:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for the beer! I'm taking a break... this time for real! At least three days... I can do it, I can! I can! :) --Merzul 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha... yes indeed I shall rise, and I will start editing the Nicholas Beale article. I will insert "In the prospect debate with Collin Howson, Nicholas Beale invokes what he calls the 'accepted standards for testing hypotheses'. Colin Howson, who has written several books on the given topic, suggests that Mr. Beale has no idea what he is talking about and recommends that Mr. Beale read his book Scientific Reasoning: the Bayesian Approach." And if NBeale objects to this, I will vehemently accuse him of suppressing well-cited information. :) Anyway, have a good time while I'm gone! --Merzul 18:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what the...? I just noticed you gave me a very friendly barnstar! Thank you... and as you can see I have already failed at taking a wikibreak!! Ah well, I'll see you soon. This time for real, I'm going away for three days. I can do it. I can! I can! Really! I can! Take care! --Merzul 20:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Pssst.... please don't tell anyone I'm breaking my wikibreak.... --Merzul 20:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm back from my wikibreak, has anything happened while I was away?? :P --Merzul 15:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the revert on my user page! -- Siobhan Hansa 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

I prefer to leave it. For the most part the fishy guy's additions are just odd and the obscenities are just childish. Either way they don't bother me. The thing is, I would rather they vandalise my user page than an article, as I saw this morning when they wanted to complain about an admin. It's better they do it on my user page than another persons, who might be upset by that. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Countering Bealean Bias

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		This Barnstar is awarded to users Snalwibma and SOPHIA for their hard work in Countering Bealean Bias on Wikipedia. Thank you for caring about the accuracy and neutrality of the project! Merzul 15:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So this was to say that I have decide to completely leave this dirty job up to you guys, I have myself gone completely mad, and can't deal with this any more. I didn't know I was capable of being so annoyed. Anyway, perhaps we will meet again, hopefully on some controversial article :) --Merzul 19:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sophia. Firstly thanks to you and Merzul for promoting the material on Martin Beale to an article. I do think however that this latest barnstar from Merzul, no doubt well meant, is a personal attack and it would be better if it were edited (keeping the barnstar of course but removing the personalisation). And I wonder if you did get a moment to check the Debretts entry, and if so could we please remove the COI tags? Many thanks. NBeale 18:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOPHIA, please do not change the Barnstar. I think being honest about what one thinks about someone's edit history (not them as a person) is better than pretending to be civil. I would almost prefer if NBeale honestly told me to just "F*CK OFF" instead of the patronizing comments on Talk:argument from love, where he shows no respect for what I am saying, and just repeats the same dismissive "it's not deductive so it can't beg the question". In my view, such utter insult to my intellect is a far more serious personal attack directly at my person. In short, I think that protecting Wikipedia from his destructive edits is a truly Herculean labour, and worthy of a Barnstar. Now, if he disagrees with this, I welcome him to file a formal RfC or RfAr against me. --Merzul 19:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

I would value your opinion, whatever it may be. -- Pastordavid 18:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:VANDALISM

Thank you for the warning. Now I've realised what I've done wrong. Heheeee

User security practices

Hey, I'm working on a guideline for user security practices and I wondered what you thought of it. My text so far is here: User:Academy Leader/UserSecurity. Everything past "Interacting with others" is copied straight from the Wikimedia Privacy policy, except for the information under "See also" and "References," which are links gathered from anywhere. This is not intended as a means of revisiting or in any way affecting the "attack sites" debates, I am simply curious as to what you may think of this. Best,—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 04:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable editors

Sophia, I certainly understand your frustration. However, the best response to such an editor is to tag their comments with a small single-purpose account tag and just move on. All whomever closes the discussion/vote would have to do is look at contributions to see what is going on, and take that into consideration. Especially in a case like this, where it seems (at least to me) that the editor in question voiced an opinion that was in keeping with the consensus with the discussion thus far.

I'm not sure what else could be done, unless sockpupptery is suspected (which it doesn't seem to be in this case). Indeed, I am out of ideas for this entire situation. Much of the behavior in question falls in to policy grey areas - it is generally frowned upon but still allowable by the strict application of policy. I will have to think about it this weekend and see if some great idea comes to me. I apologize for not being able to provide more helpful advice. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, seeing that the AfD has reopened, why dont you let me watch for SPA's, and I will tag them. Hopefully that will seem less adversarial. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 18:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 06:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any problems or question please don't hesitate to ask

"If you have any problems or question please don't hesitate to ask"

You mean this? Burntapple 06:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Beale

You voted on this article's AFD previously. User:NBeale complained that the AFD was closed too early, and so it was reopened. Please leave your opinion at the second nomination for AFD. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-05 17:09Z

Sophia, the link is actually here. I've got it watchlisted. Pastor David ^† _(Review) 18:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edits to Big Bang

Considering that the content in question was written as an essay, I felt at the time that using VP was not provacative due to the overhanging POV and OR appearance. I see your point of view though, and will not use VP to revert further such edits. Someguy1221 06:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Sophia, thanks for your beat-the-nominator support of my RfA, which successfully closed yesterday. Thanks also for your comments about my sig - in the end, it seemed easiest (and least disruptive), just to change it back. I am looking forward to continuing to work with you as our interests seem to cross paths with some regularity. Pastordavid 14:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wenisweasel

Hi Sophia, I removed your report from AIV and gave Wenisweasel a warning for BLP violations. Hope that's OK - I'll keep an eye on him. Take care, – Riana_ऋ 06:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther

Thanks for the heads up, I've been watching it since it went up for a GA review. This has always been -- for reasons I can't quite put my finger on -- a very contentious article. In fact, I tend to ignore it for long stretches so that I don't get caught up in the more vitriolic content disputes. That said, I am trying to pitch in there a little now, and help getting things back on track (they seem to have quieted some, anyway). I wonder if you would watch the talk page for a few weeks, just to be an objective voice and help keep me honest (since my biases on this article are pretty clear). Thanks, Pastordavid 16:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm taking that one back off my watchlist. The consensus on the talk page -- at least for right now (at least a couple of editors have bowed out of the page) -- seems pretty happy with the direction that the article is heading in. Personally, I think that it is heading in the direction of proving extensive coverage on tangential topics and (like much of Wikipedia) a trend of recentism - favoring relatively new and not always widely received research at the expense of more traditional readings. I find much of what is being discussed to be good material - but more suited to a monograph than an encyclopedia. So, the article will be what it will be ... who knows - the end result could wind up being much better than I am expecting (and I hope that it is!). But it is worrysome that editors who I know have a background in Luther studies are feeling pushed out of the process. Pastordavid 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus as Myth

Hi, there's just been a big change over at Jesus as myth - particularly, that much of the content over there has been moved over to Jesus myth hypothesis, and it's basically been split into two sections. You haven't commented on that discussion, and I felt it would be worth bringing to your attention, in case you had any comments, since it did happen rather too quickly for any significant consensus to develop. (Personally, I think I marginally prefer it the new way, but I don't have any strong feelings either way.) TJ 12:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus the mythical article

I love this place. Having a full time job positively counts against you - huh? Sophia 13:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I give up - wikipedia will always have crap religious articles. Sophia 15:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give up. The religious right takes away freedoms one step at a time, so someone has to draw the line somewhere. There are dedicated editors everywhere, we just have to get them to notice some of these articles. Note articles like Noah's Ark, Intelligent Design, and Creation Science. POV is removed, and they are balanced. Help where you can. Don't give up the good fight. Orangemarlin 17:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(pardon the intrusion) Sophia, don't throw in the towel just yet. As OM points out, these things have a way of working themselves out in time. You are far to valuable an editor to let the frustration get to you too terribly much. I don't have time to pitch in right now, but I have no doubt that - with enough careful and deliberate editors involved - this article will wind up being a great contribution to the encyclopedia. Pastordavid 17:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia, please see my reply to your posting at Orangemarlin (I will not comment on his confused posting here) which I posted at the article talk page. I am in no way prepared to let him dictate the contents of the article without discussion simply by pointing to the faults of a third party. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and yes, don't throw in the towel. WP needs reasonable atheists just as it needs reasonable Christians. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia, please note my sarcasm wasn't pointed to you on whatever travesty of an article I posted for you. I don't even read these articles after the POV pushers got done with it. They'll get bored, and maybe we can do a mass revert to where we before. Didn't we do that once? LOL. Orangemarlin 07:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

literature review...

What a waste... imagine how many Wikipedia articles you could have written with those 6,000 words :P No, you're absolutely right, except this WikiBreak stuff just doesn't work for me. As you probably might have noticed... --Merzul 22:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus myth hypothesis

Did you ever feel like you were banging your head against un mur de l'ignorance? Watch out for Str1977 -- he always tries to take your points somewhere they weren't meant to go. Jim62sch 16:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to that beautiful article? I'm frustrated by what had happened. Orangemarlin 18:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why did you decide to go with Jesus Christ and comparative mythology instead of Jesus myth hypothesis? I think the other should be nominated for deletion. Orangemarlin 19:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Input sought

Hi. I imagine you've got WT:NPA watchlisted (or maybe you prefer not to be reminded of it so often), but I just wanted to bring your attention to the most recent topic on that page, where there's some discussion of seeking mediation. I'd appreciate if you could have a look at that topic, which I think might contain a possible way forward. If you'd prefer not to discuss it in that venue, I'd be open to alternatives, such as email or IRC or what-have-you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

I realize now that this RfA may have been a bit premature, and I only accepted the nomination at the bidding of another user, who said it should be put off before, our miscalculation. I don't think I have crossed any lines yet and don't intend to, I am really not that riled up about this whole thing, true it is a bit frustrating but it like all things will pass. Thanks for the comments and compliments.

Hello Sophia, IvoShandor has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

IvoShandor 16:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons account

If you email me your email address, I can try to create commons:User:SOPHIA for you. Bryan 11:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]