User talk:Steve kap

Welcome!

Hello, Steve kap, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am CTSWyneken. 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
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Provide an Edit summary
Take a look at Consensus of standards. It is always wise to read the talk page of an existing article before making major changes on it. Even then, I typically ask if anyone minds that I make a change. Very often they do! ;-)
Create a User page

Again, welcome! And if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. --CTSWyneken 02:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concordia

Dear Steve: Thanks for the note! I am a graduate of that Seminary. Currently, I'm a librarian at the Fort Wayne version of the sem. I hope my Welcome Wagon greeting makes you feel at home on the wiki. Thanks also for signing your note. May I suggest something? It is very helpful to have editors put for tildes (~~~~) at the end of each post. That will sign your username when you save the post. It helps develop a working relationship among editors. --CTSWyneken 10:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! That does nicely. Welcome, again! -CTSWyneken 18:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chalmers vs Goteborg U.

Hi Steve. I'm afraid I won't be of much help here; I know next to nothing about the master's programs. Finding a place to live can be tough; try Chalmers Studentbostäder. Fredrik Johansson 19:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Septimalization

Thanks for the message.

First, noting your concern on this - no doubt you are aware that you can be more diplomatic. That's all I was asking. Thanks for understanding, there.

As for the article, to explain my vote, yes, I know that the article is essentially describing something that is completely fantastical. My motives are to nondisriptively prove a point though. Wikinger has expressed a desire to make this work, so I'm going on good faith here and waiting for him to improve it - and yet, I know he won't be able to do it without obfuscating the living daylights out of it and/or trying too hard, thus...well, killing the article. On the other hand, unlike other articles I've seen go through AfD, though, the article's creator really does have a basis, however fantastical it may be. In one case, it's the Holy Bible - which many people consider to be anything except fantastical.

So there's my brain dump, before coffee - hopefully you can parse the decaffeinated ramblings of a lunatic mind. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Steve, please be careful not to make personal attacks at Sigismont (talk · contribs).[1] I am trying to explain to him that he is violating WP:NOR. Rather than attacking, perhaps you could have a go at trying to explain policy to him? He may accept that his theory is not suitable for inclusion, and if not we will be able to request community opinion on his edits. Cheers. JFW | T@lk 10:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying JFW. The comment was made in all earnest. I really think this person could be mentally ill and off his meds. But, in hind sight, I guess I should have made the comment to his talk page, rather than the discussion page. In any case, I'll let the matter rest, I'll let you handle it. Steve kap 10:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most would view your comment as an attack rather than a genuine expression of concern... I understand what he wants - he thinks he can demonstrate from the 10 commandments that Jews were never meant to circumcise their children. The problem is that he is the only person in the world who believes that this can be so demonstrated. The arguments are based on egregious misreading of the text of the Pentateuch. But even so, we cannot include them because of WP:NOR concerns rather than the fact that his arguments are specious. JFW | T@lk 16:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it really was a genuine expression of concern, but, as I've said, should have made it more privitely. It sounds like you're saying there actually is a school of thought that supports his view, I find that a bit suprising. But, I don't know if you've ever read anything written by a parnoid scz., but the rambling tone is just like that. Although, I have to say, to me, it doesn't seem that much different from, say, post-modern writing or mainstream theology for that matter,, so , maybe its just me. Anyway, I'm done with this one, do as you will.Steve kap 20:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hyksos

The recent addition of material claiming Israel means "Ra + El", that the Hyksos are the original Jews and that modern Ashkenazim are "Khazar converts" is uncited bigoted fringe theory. Citations to a Youtube video are not going to suffice as "scholarship", are they? Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 16:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I see your point, but it's vandalism if its deliberate addition of bigotry... and the video in question is firmly in that category. It's an anti-Semitic rant. Note the usual White Power/Neo-Nazi claims that the Jews aren't really Jews and that Judaism came from the worship of Ra. It's far beyond moonbat. It is certainly inappropriate - read the rest of the article, it's like the most random fragment jammed into an otherwise well-written and well-sourced article. This is not the place to discuss the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - it's an article about the Hyksos! Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 00:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honor your father and your mother discussion

Steve,in your claims of hypocrisy you seem to be confusing a recent editor who added substantial Catholic and Protestant viewpoints with the article originator who created an article that was decidedly Jewish. How smart do you think it looks to be discussing hypocrisy when your basic facts are obviously flawed?

Regarding the removal of your unsourced line, "Today however, many secularist(particularly the Freedom From Religion Foundation), see this commandment as merely a continuation of the authoritarian theme of the first four commandments", even if we accept the link as a reliable source (when it seems more like a self-published tract), it does not support your claim that the viewpoint is shared by "many" secularists. Including the claim in the lede is undue weight until and unless ample support is provided in the main body of the article. It is not the duty of other editors to find reliable sources, create a properly sourced section on non-religious viewpoints, and properly cite support for material that you want included.

You comment ("Adding a little balance. Is there a reason the intro is dedicated to the pioty of one particular religon?") upon adding this is also in factual error. The lead section contains a balanced representation of Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic views. Both Catholic and Protestant translations are quoted, the Jewish numbering of the commandments was used, both Old and New Testaments are cited, along with both Jewish and Protestant commentaries.Pasteur1967 (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links do not meet Wikipedia standards for verifibility with regards to specific statements in the article unless there is an inline citation connecting the two AND the material meets Wikipedia standards as a reliable source. Your post on the talk page some weeks ago mentioned an “article” (suggesting a reliable source, but without a link). However, the you link added to the article is a self-published tract/brochure of very poor scholarship that would not withstand peer-review in any scholarly venue. There are plenty of secular sources on the Ten Commandments that meet Wikipedia standards as reliable sources and offer much superior scholarship to the link you provided.Pasteur1967 (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you seem to be confusing me with another editor (the originator of the article) who made the "no time limit" comment on the talk page. (More precisely, editor Xyz7890 made the comment that "there is no deadline.") This idea is generally relevant to article improvement, but it does not imply that unsourced material or original research should be allowed to persist indefinitely. Now that you have claimed to be a member of FFRF, adding the link would be a conflict of interest, and the proper procedure would be to suggest the link on the talk page and wait for an editor who is not a member of the organization to add the link to the page if s/he believes it has sufficient merit. However, note that reliability (not notability) governs acceptable sources and external lnks. Lots of sources are notable, but explicity not regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia standards, including YouTube, Wikipedia itself, self-published material, USENET news, certain tabloids, etc.Pasteur1967 (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ten Commandments. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Steve, the solution is to get further discussion on the article by editors who are not invested in the POV of the editors who currently own it, though my attempts at doing that have not garnered any interest. — kwami (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steve kap. You have new messages at Mann jess's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jess_talk|_edits 23:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Ten Commandments, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for disruption, edit warring and civility problems concerning Ten Commandments. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 Commandments

I am warning you not to violate the 3RR rule at this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ten Commandments. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert this one more time Steve, today, tomorrow, or next week, I'm taking you straight to an administrative board. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here we find a person that likes to get his way, by edit war, to get his text in an article with no consensus. Then, whe n others revert, he says "shame shame, please don't edit war". I guess numbers are on your side. You win. 18:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

ip#

A possible heads-up, Talk:Ten Commandments#New Proposal, after my sample line with the partial quote, and directly above the Temporary reflist, is a reply by IP user 130.76.96.150, which caught my eye. It looks almost like one of the IP numbers you were using before you obtained a user name: 130.76.96.15 with initials SAK. If the one above the reflist is you, in the light of WP:SOCK it might be a good idea while logged in, to insert a line after it with something like: "The above IP was me while not logged in." If not, well no worries. —Telpardec (talk) 03:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on my talk page

Please watch User Talk:Zargulon for updates.Zargulon (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religious bias at Ten Commandments

Hi Steve. I have dipped into this article's talk page a couple of times over the last month or so and think I see a group of editors, including you, who believe the article is unduly slanted away from the historical and critical scholarly position and towards the faith position. That is my impression. Have I accurately characterised your view and, if so, what steps have been taken to remedy this, outside the article itself and its talk page? One of the editors implied you're under some kind of sanction; has there been an arbcom case over this yet? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthonyhcole. Yes, you fairly describe the situation. There was another editor (adminstrator), Kwami, that also had the same feeling. I don't know of any action being taken. I'd support such an action, but I don't really know the ropes, I won't start such action myself. There have been a few others, recently, that have also voiced some dismay on what might be a religous slant on this article. To me, its fine if the religous want to say what there view are, but they shouldn't be able to limit a more acedemic view, they should be able to hide away parts of the bible that don't corrispond to the traditional view (see the Ritial 10 commandments, much debate over that). Cheers. Steve kap (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm unimpressed by the belligerence on the talk page. I suppose it gets a number of antisemites trying to portray the TC as a manifesto for world subjugation, so can understand the regulars there being impatient when they suspect that. But the same degree of animosity seems to be leveled at those who want to neutrally represent the state of archaeological, historical and literary evidence.

I'll watch it for a bit longer and see if I think the problem is big enough to justify taking it on the dispute resolution path. (Your page is now on my watchlist, so if you want to add anything here, I'll see it.) Thank you for your attention. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the belligerence is in response to antisemitism. I think that the creator of the page, and his co-religous feel some sort of proprietery right to the content. Also, I think a shift in culture is going on, I think the religous are used to getting a free pass from critial analysis. I think they are honestly shocked that others can openly question the historisity of there claims. I think it's something will have to get used to. Steve kap (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

diverse comments needed

Since you and I have always disagreed, I know I can count on your for an objective view in this dispute at the Bible article talk page: [2] Slrubenstein | Talk 17:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Levity

Steve, it appears that on Talk:Ten Commandments, I'm doing all the work and you're kidding around. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that taking one word out of context from a source isn't kosher (pardon the pun). At one point you argued that it's ambiguous where the 10C start and stop, therefore it couldn't possibly be true that the 10C are ambiguous. I do appreciate levity on Wikipedia, but this bit is getting old. Would you please stop? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ben,

There is no levity on my part, and I'm really not trying to beat you down. And, in truth, I think that you really do believe that the sources support your point. The problem is that they just don't. What your presenting is your interpretation, it doesn't come from the sources. It comes from you. I think its hard for you so see, be cause you are used to thing about it in the w certain way. Thats why my comments SEEM over the top and sarcastic, because they are supporting a , sorry to say, ridiculous position.

As to you idea that I think that where the 10C start and star is ambiguous, therefore, what, the commandments themselves are specific (?), I just don't get that point. They are 2 separate things... what the 10C are is ambiguous (IMO, and that of sources), and the 10C themselves are very very specific (my assertion, but one that you haven't countered, despite efforts).

I really think this rather small point could be settled, just stick to what you can support, that SOME religious traditions hold that the 10C SHOULD be interpreted, broadened, not taken literally, not limited to the actual limited text. Thats something that you can support and we can all agree on.

But, to say that, for example 'don't covet they neighbors wife (property!!), ass, ox, home', is NOT specific! What would that argument even look like!! Who would be so foolish (not any of your sources, thankfully). The only line of argument I can think of would go like ' you have to understand that in the language, written, there was no way to express a GENERAL admonition not to covet, so the authors (God ?) was forces to imply a general rule, by citing as many specific examples as possible'. But this is an imagined defense of your position, the best my imagination could come up with, and lame at that. Steve kap (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I've mostly seen you take words out of context and argue your personal interpretation of the 10C. I'm reluctant to address any new points from you, since I expect that you'll just respond by taking words out of context yet again. I looked at some of your history of contributions and saw that you've been doing these same two things on Talk:Ten Commandments for years now, as well as posting little psychoanalyses of other editors when they've disagreed with you. It isn't helpful. If you seriously want to contribute to the article, and you really think there's an error in what I've said, then please address the substance of the sources I've pointed out, not words taken out of context.

One other thought. I gather that you're trying to get representation for a certain atheist POV in the article. Is that correct? If you have a serious purpose and aren't arguing just for laughs, maybe spelling out that purpose here will suggest a way to accomplish it constructively. There may be ways you could work with rather than against Wikipedia's policies and editors. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my dear friend. Do you just not get it, or are trying very hard to not get it. The only point that I'm making is that the statement in the article, that the 10C were written in a vuage manner, that would lend itself to interpretation, is NOT SUPPORTED BY YOUR CITATIONS. Thats it. Thats the long and the short of it. Do you sources they they are special? YES! Do they say they are fundimental? YES! Do they say they are terse? YES! But NONE of these say they are vauge! THAT is the point. Do you get it? I'm not saying that you agree with it, but do you at long last understand what my point is?Steve kap (talk)

And, how dare you pull that 'you're an atheist crap! If anyone were to sayyou appear to be a Jew, is that why you express this, are you trying to spread your Jewish ideas" we would all be outraged! Yet you think atheism is fair game for such an ad hom attack. For Shame!Steve kap (talk)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]