User talk:Csernica/Archive 3

Italiotis 08:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

==May I ask you why you try to exlude The Schepulchre from the most holy places? It represents 1.5 billion christians. If you are not a christian please feel free to include the most holy place of your denomination or if you are atheist i don t think that really have to worry you what are considered to be most holy places for other religions. You sound silly and insulting by doing so. == —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiotis (talk • contribs) 13:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the comments and advice. We are all still relatively new and can use all the help we can get.

Are you an administrator? Would you like to be one?

--Ryan ^TALK 22:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

• If you think someone else made your work easier ... maybe you should spread the wikilove. --evrik 17:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for prettifying the Nazareth page. I am very bad at formatting and appreciate your selfless intervention. Seeing that you tend to do this quite regularly, I award you

Tiamut 10:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Csernica/Archive 3!

Thank you for your contributions to a Tolkien-related article. If you are interested, feel free to join WikiProject Middle-earth, a WikiProject focused on improving Tolkien-related articles in Wikipedia. We would be glad to have you join in the effort!

Here're some good links and subpages related to the WikiProject.

• Middle-earth WikiProject discussion
• Middle-earth WikiProject things to do - A compilation of all the tasks that are needed to do
• Middle-earth Standards (talk)
• Middle-earth WikiProject Portal

If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to ask on our talk page.

Thank you for your contributions and have fun editing! —Mirlen 05:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your comment on Gandalf's article made me laugh, but while you do have a point (looking from the POV of the good side, i.e. Gandalf), we could make the same case using the same logic with Melkor, who was dubbed Morgoth by Fëanor and the rest of the Elves. Morgoth was a variation of an insult, or rather a name that was purposely supposed to contain negative connotation, as is the case with one Gandalf's names, Láthspell. It's all a matter of perspective, but because Wikipedia is supposed to be in NPOV, I think it's legitimate case to have the name included. Also, if Gandalf was called "cranky old man" or "doody-head," (as you prefer :D) then we would not include it as one of his names because these are common insults not specialized to Gandalf. Láthspell, on the other hand, is a name given to Gandalf and him alone. —Mirlen 05:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You do have a point, and I concur...to an extent. However, "that dratted wizard" and "old fool" should not be considered as the same case as with Láthspell. "That dratted wizard" and "Old fool" are labels and common insults; they are not particularly specialized to Gandalf. The description Theoden gives to Gandalf ("wisest of counsellors, most welcome of wanderers, a lord of the Mark, a chieftain of the Eorlingas") is as you said, an epithet. However, Láthspell is a name given to Gandalf; it is specialized for him by courtesy of Grima Wormtongue; how commonly it is used shouldn't be the determining factor of whether or a name is a name. For example, Eleanor Roosevelt's real name was Anna Eleanor Roosevelt. Anna was almost never used, she was referred to by her middle name — but was common usage a factor in determining whether or not Anna was a name of Eleanor's (temporarily disregarding that it was her birth name)? While Láthspell functions as to negatively describe Gandalf, it is still a name.

"Láthspell I name you, Ill-news; and ill news is an ill guest they say."

The manner in which Grima names Gandalf sounds similiar as how a royal would be crowned and thus would be given a new name to govern a country by (though the intentions and circumstances are entirely different). It is not used as a throwaway label or an insult i.e. "Old fool," but as a name to dub Gandalf.

But rather then deciding whether or not Láthspell is a name, what I'm more concerned about is the big picture. As aforementioned, common usage of a name shouldn't be the factor of determing the validity of a name; it should be the manner in which the name is given that should be the factor. For instance, how often was the name, The Dúnadan, used to refer to Aragorn? If I recall correctly (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), The Dúnadan was only used by Bilbo. A vast majority of the people called the man Aragorn, Estel or Elfstone. —Mirlen 18:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Arwen calls him Dúnadan. "I will cleave to you, Dúnadan, and turn from the Twilight." (Appendix A). Carcharoth 21:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, "Dúnadan" was a name by which Aragorn was sometimes called. It "took", so to speak. No one ever really called Gandalf "Láthspell". And I'm sorry, but there's a vast difference between the formal bestowing of a name on coronation (or ordination, or the taking of monastic vows, etc.) and Wormtongue's little "neener-neener" comment. By that standard, I could say to you, "Dingleberry, I name you!" and that would actually be a name of yours from now on. Obviously absurd. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, technically both Bilbo and Arwen were using it in the sense of "Man of the West". Kind of mixing in their Adunaic (I think) with their Westron. Compare Turin's monicker of Adanedhel. Anyway, this all reinforces a point that was made before. Detailed stuff on names needs to go in the main text. If these have all been put in the infoboxes as "names", then the details are lost and the linguistic subtleties are not evident. Personally I find the "names" bit of the infobox more trouble than it is worth. Would be much nicer to have the explanations and translations of the different names in the article. Carcharoth 23:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I stand corrected — I must've missed that in the text. It's been a time since I've read that tale. Thanks Carcharoth. :) (Oh, on the point with infoboxes, I'll post a note on your talk page. My post will be too long by that time. To TCC: you're welcome to jump in the conversation since I'm merely moving a reply that's a part of this disucssion.)

Also, TCC, I think you're missing what I've said earlier: (though the intentions and circumstances are entirely different). I've made the distinction between a coronation and Wormtongue's comment that the circumstances are seperate. However, I apologize if I wasn't clear enough in my language. It isn't an important point of mine anyway.

Well, if you consistently called me Dingleberry, then it would be one of the names I would be called. It may not be a name I may go by, but it's one of the names that is used to call me. Láthspell is a name for Gandalf, regardless of whether or not he undertakes it doesn't mean it isn't a name. It is a name or rather, a "nickname," it just isn't what he goes by. You seem to argue that common usage is the determining factor for what should be considered a name, that's what I'm more concerned with more than the issue with one of Gandalf's names, as I have also mentioned earlier: "But rather then deciding whether or not Láthspell is a name, what I'm more concerned about is the big picture."

But as of now, I do see the flaws in my current argument because there is hardly any more scenes afterwards of Wormtongue interacting with Gandalf — hence, the lack of stronger evidence from the book itself specifically. Not to say that he wouldn't have called Gandalf Láthspell if they encountered each other continously or if Wormtongue managed to bewitch the whole town with his words so that they'd call Gandalf Láthspell, but I do admit the lack of interaction between them supports any point. I am not going to make the cases, however, because then I would be drawing upon hypothetical situations not facts. Therefore, I'll put aside my arguments to R.I.P. ;)

But as I have ended my last reply with, I would like to get back to common usage as the determining factor — moving away from Gandalf and more towards the generel idea. And more importantly, these are the questions I feel we need to answer in regards to situations in general: To what point to we draw a line on nicknames/monickers for them to be considered as names? If a name is used as a negative way, do we not consider it? Do we consider names with positive or neutral meanings as legimite names? How much does common usage play into as a factor of determining the validity of a name? (I'm honestly not trying to pick an argument. For me, I'm always interested in hearing different POVs.) —Mirlen 23:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Have you read my third paragraph? I did admit that I was drawing on hypothetical situations, wasn't I? However, I would like to move on to the general idea of common usage. How much of a role does it play into being considered as a true name? —Mirlen 00:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You're talking about the move right? Well, obviously it should be moved to Morgoth because WP:NC states that "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" — and Googling 'Morgoth' has shown that name to be the winner. But we aren't talking about naming articles (As you can see, I have not proposed to move Gandalf to Láthspell). I fail to see how following WP:NC has to do with determining a validity of a name. Unless I have missed your point completely, I would like to repeat myself again: "I would like to move on to the general idea of common usage. How much of a role does it play into being considered as a true name?" It seems to me that we're debating on details that are already settled instead of focusing on the bigger picture because I have said to quote, that I would put my arguments on Láthspell "to R.I.P.". But as I have said, if you feel you have addressed the general idea on the link you provided me, then please correct me. (By general, I mean out of Gandalf, Morgoth, and LotR and more towards encompassing topics in genereal.) —Mirlen 00:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

<deindent> Personally, I think Lathspell should be mentioned in some way. There is a liguistic point to be made there, but I can't think quite what it is at the moment. I'm sure Shippey or someone mentions it. Regarding names in general, consider Aragorn, where the "name" Longshanks is given. However, the Aragorn#Names_and_titles is missing the following (please move this to that talk page if you want, and apologies to TCC for continuing this conversation on your talk page): Envinyatar (the Renewer), Isildur's Heir/The Heir of Isildur, Elendil's Heir/The Heir of Elendil, Captain of the Host of the West, Thorongil, Stick-at-nought Strider, Ranger of the North, Lord Aragorn, Chieftain of the Dunedain of Arnor, King of the West, King Elessar, last of the Numenoreans, the latest King of the Elder Days, and finally, of the house of Valandil. Some of these are pedantic in the extreme, but if nothing else, these names illustrate Aragorn's history and lineage. Now the trouble is finding a source that makes something of all these names, otherwise it is just OR. Hmm. PS. I'm having difficulty following the above, as I think the conversation is taking place across talk pages. I'll bow out gracefully now! :-) Carcharoth 00:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry. Just a few more comments. "I name you" is the construction that both Eomer and Gildor Inglorion use, when naming Aragorn and Frodo, "Wingfoot" and "Elf-friend" respectively. If that helps. And the act of naming often does mean something. Tolkien's "Guide to the name in LotR" might have more to say about this (he wrote it to aid translators when deciding what to do with names). Other examples of things gaining new names are Minas Anor/Tirith and Minas Ithil/Morgul, and Greenwood -> Mirkwood, and Narsil -> Anduril, and the bit where Tom Bombadil give Merry's ponies new names "they answered to the new names that Tom had given them for the rest of their lives", and where Durin names the nameless hills and dells, and Sauron and Mordor being referred to as "the Nameless Enemy/Land", and the Balrog being the "nameless fear". Finally (really!) is this bit from Tom again: "Don’t you know my name yet? That’s the only answer. Tell me, who are you, alone, yourself and nameless?". Carcharoth 00:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Before I have to leave (the discussion is just too enticing for me to resist ;)), I'll just go over things briefly and resond in-depthly later when I get the chance. On the point with Eomer and Gildor Inglorion (as well as Tom and the ponies), it does help indeed. I must reread to those parts to revisit memories of yore...I honestly don't remember at all. Does anyone have Tolkien's "Guide to the names in LotR"? Because getting words from the Professor himself would be handy. Also, I think this discussion should move so other Tolkien editors can participate. Insights from more people would be very helpful since this issue has gotten larger. —Mirlen 00:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just spotted this. THe most disgusting piece of Tolkien OR I have ever seen. Thanks for removing it! :-) Carcharoth 21:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but I can't take too much credit. Reversions are pretty easy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

In case Mirlen and Carcharoth are both watching here, please take a look at Morgoth Lord Morgoth Bauglir Morgoth Bauglir (LOTR) Melkor/Morgoth Bauglir. Someone's been playing. I've placed a request at WP:RM to move it back, but since I figured the user in question might get argumentative I've placed it in the possibly controversial moves section. Please comment at the talk page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I added my support. The move to Morgoth makes perfect sense. —Mirlen 00:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

So you are the one who thinks the mountain giant information should be deleted, huh? I would really appreciate if you went ahead and took the stupid deletion warning off of my page. I created that and it should not be deleted. If you think I am seeing things, go read the Books again. I do admitt I screwed the title up I should not have put Mountain Giants, I should have written Stone Giants. But this information is all correct. I would site your stupid sources if I knew how, the minute I learn I shall, just to make you happy. Now, lets make me happy and get rid of the Deletion thingy. Tolkien ideed did write a book called Guide to Middle Earth, and this was my main source of information. It was cut from stores in the 80's but luckliy my father bought it before then, and passed it down to me. I have said it and I shall say it again All of this information it true, and anyways why do you care, it's not bothering you is it? I don't think so. I am not your friend, I am not your enemy, but you are turning me against you, I want my page to stay. My final notice is that if this page is deleted I WILL WRITE IT AGAIN!

Thanks, Csernica, for fixing my huge image that I was fighting to fix. You saved my day!! I've been working on that article for an assignment for a course and was cursing that I didn't know how to reduce the pix. size. I am grateful to you!! User:Deborahcox 02:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just want to tell you that you have excellent interests, good work! féerique 10:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey Csernica, sorry about what happened over the mountain giant page. Yes this is my new name, Samug the Mighty, pretty cool huh? Well from above I can see you are a Tolkien fanatic, just like me. Well, guess I'll catch you around, you can start a new talk with me if you like, you know, just to talk, well see you later !

Hi. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BZ(Bruno Zollinger) involves a user who got into a dispute with you on Talk:Miracle, in case you want to comment. ←Hob 06:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just assumed that being such a short article any input would be handy, and i highly doubt myself or anyone would simply bludgen the post with every Kontakion they could find....

but hey, obviously you are more qualified to decide which ones should be open to the public through wikipedia.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tophatdan (talk • contribs)

Nice (style,gallery) images edit. Thank you. Uriel8 19:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

---

You showed how to format the Image: links for the gallery tag by removing the square brackets. Then I noticed that the trailing spaces between the Image: links has to be trimmed, too.

Thank you for your compliment on the images.

I will now use the Preview button, as you mentioned... was trying to avoid the sandbox thingy with my slow internet connection, but I should have been doing that. Oops! Should clean up the history a lot. Uriel8 21:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

---

Note that you had not left spaces at the end of any Image: tags, but when I first tried to add a (style gallery) like yours to the Mount Tamalpais article, the trailing space after the first Image: tag caused the second Image: tag to appear as text only.

BTW, what do you think about combining the Stub article called Mount Tamalpais State Park with the longer article on Mount Tamalpais? It seems that the two are really identical, and it might be nice to have the State Park stats in the longer article.

Thanks for the note on underscores in Wiki link names and general WP:HELP links. I did not know about those. Uriel8 22:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help on Purgatory. I think that the particular judgment page might not represent Eastern Orthodox views very well, if you could give us a hand over there, too. Jonathan Tweet 03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I want to stop in and say a thank you as well, much appreciated. Lostcaesar 09:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Through e-mail, Nasmith gave permission to use his images in August this year. (I hope it's not insufficient? So far permission's kept copies of Jenny Dolfen's and Anke Katrin Eißmann's art from being deleted.) I should have emphasized that; thanks. I've actually uploaded three other Nasmith images:

• Image:NasmithBlackGate.jpg
• Image:NasmithGandalfBalrog1.jpg
• Image:NasmithMinasTirith.jpg

I'll remove the whole Rolozo thing from their rationales and emphasize "permission given".

From the Wikiproject talk page archive - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth/archive5#New_Images (with added bolding)

I was thinking about possibly getting some of the Ted Nasmith illustartions from the Silmarillion up particulary for the Manwe and Turin article.

-Dhawk1964 16:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's all the information you need. I've contacted Anke and Dolfen through email before and they were generous enough to give permission — so I think that if you email Ted Nasmith he'd be fine with it, as long as you explain the whole fair use issue thoroughly in Wikipedia. I was also thinking of using his "Eärendil Searches Tirion" picture for the Tirion upon Túna article. In fact, it might be best to ask him how many images he'll allow to be put on Wikipedia if he does give permission. —Mirlen 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• I sent an email through his website, but it said that he only respons periodicaly, so it may be a while before we have permissions. But I did explain the fair use policy. Dhawk1964 00:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Great. :) If this thread gets archived and Ted Nasmith has responded, feel free to either pull it out again, or just tell me on talk page. Thanks! —Mirlen 13:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• I just got a response: "I’m happy to accept this request, yes. And yes, I guess I am curious about what specific purpose they will serve.

Regards, Ted" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhawk1964 (talk • contribs)

Awesome. Then I'm assuming that we're allowed to use his images? I'll fix the Standards page, he can check the artwork we're using in the 'Fair use' section. —Mirlen 17:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yea, we can use them. I'll send him the 'Fair use' policy link.Dhawk1964 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I confess I've already uploaded Image:NasmithGandalfBalrog1.jpg (Gandalf and the Balrog), modeling the fair use rationale on Mirlen's for the Faramir and Maedhros images - without Nasmith's permission. But, to quote myself - "Nasmith apparently allows larger versions of his images to be distributed as long as they have copyright watermarks on them, which this image has. (See http://fan.theonering.net/rolozo/ - Entry for November 12 2002)" - as pointed out by Hyarion of Tolkien Gateway earlier. It's currently on the Gandalf, Balrog and Durin's Bane articles; besides, it's refreshing to see unwinged Balrogs :D. At least now we've got permission... BTW, updated Standards page to reflect the suggestions above. Uthanc 11:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• I thought I saw that... it's alright, we just need to get some more up now. Dhawk1964 15:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I just uploaded an image in the Tirion article. So far we've got Tirion, Balrog, Durin's Bane — anymore articles that contain Nasmith's artwork? (Remember the limit is around 5-7, so choose wisely ;).) —Mirlen 20:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • You forgot Gandalf - and our standards say that "Generally, there should be no more than 5-7 illustrations or photographs from the same artist in a work". Doesn't that mean we can use illustrations from the same artist for more than 7 times, just not in a single article? Uthanc 01:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • He has a great one of Manwe descending on Numenor, it would be nice to see that one up. Oh, and possibly one of Luthien. I like his depictions of her the best. Dhawk1964 19:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I meant as no more than 5-7 images created by the artist (the artist's work) used in articles, but the the fair use section in Me:S needs updating and rewriting. And recently, I've seen a lot of other articles that use images of the same article more than 7 times, so I guess it's alright. I can see how my words were confusing, sorry. (I also liked Jenny Dolfen and Anke Katrin Eissman's portrayals of Luthien.) —Mirlen 17:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay? If all of the art including Dolfen's and Eißmann's gets axed due to possibilities of free equivalents, we'll be stuck with adaptation images again, but that can't be helped. Surely art by known (at least in the field), and more importantly selling artists is better than that by some guy/girl? But appealing to emotion is invalid, I guess. Uthanc 12:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

What next, then? I suppose we (the project) should clarify things by asking permission again. Uthanc 00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is it Wiki-legal to have the Nasmith images just speedily deleted? I don't think so. Uthanc 18:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I finally got around to e-mailing Nasmith; just though you should know. I hope he replies before Dec. 19, if I'm correct. If not, I can't re-upload that (specific watermarked?) image again, right? You could have warned me about it first, you know. Uthanc 10:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

From the notice: "Unless the copyright status of the media is clarified, it will be deleted one week after its listing. Material compliant with our copyright requirements may be uploaded after deletion. Do not re-upload the media that was here before. It will be removed." (bolding theirs) I gave Nasmith the option to allow larger or smaller versions, with or without watermarks. It's up to him. Uthanc 11:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm resting easier now. Thanks for the help. Uthanc 11:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

You may disagree with me about the the definition of mythology (and note that utterances by two Christian writers have no real bearing on this), but I must take exception to your statement that what I did was systematic. Wetman accused me of having systematically "methodically gone through articles included in the Category:Christian mythology removing them" - I did more or less systematically go through the category but I did not systematically remove the articles included - otherwise why are there articles left? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Csernica, Why have you been reverting posts so many times on Trinity? I was troubled that you changed several of my additions without explaining why first or discussing them. I felt you were taking control for yourself something that should bbe shared between us. I have found revisions are a heavy handed approach best reserved for spam. ...Just_Nigel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Just nigel (talk • contribs) 07:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC).Reply

Sounds good. I don't see how he/she can keep adding them. Slac speak up! 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm surprised by your statement that Eastern Orthodox do not consider St. Peter to be the first Pope. This is not my reading of Bishop Ware's book on the Orthodox Church. Who do you say the Orthodox consider to be the first pope? -- Cat Whisperer 05:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for cleaning up the section on the sanctuary. I get a little too wordy. Concerning the Thronos; I wonder what is most common. While I have often seen synthronos behind the altar, in almost all cases the Thronos for the bishop was in the nave on the right side. Also, I think the relics contained within the altar are supposed to be specifically Martyr’s relics. Your comments? --Phiddipus 17:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it may simply be ethnic differences. In the Greek tradition I am familiar with the Bishop enters the church wearing the Episcopal mantia. He moves to the center of the nave and stands on an eagle rug. His vestments are brought out one by one with prayers being chanted by the Deacon. The choir sings all through the vesting ending with Eis Pola Eti Despota. He is given the Trikyrie and Dikyrie and blesses the congregation. He is then escorted to the thronos on the right hand side of the nave. He stays there until the little entrance, then he goes into the altar for the rest of the service.

The book of Revelations (Rev 6:9) mentions the Martyrs being under the altar; I wonder if that has any direct relationship. --Phiddipus 22:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I guess it depends on the size of the church. I know among the Slavic churches there was a kind of competition to see who could build the biggest and most elaborate church, but Greeks, especially in Greece tend to have fairly small churches (with a few exceptions, of course). Consider St Gregory Palamas, his cathedral had enough room for only about 12 families. I have seen many churches so small that they have only one deacon’s door, or none at all. Still, I have seen churches with seating behind the altar for clergy. I suppose in larger churches there is a “high seat” for the bishop. I have seen a portable throne that is set to the right front of the altar for the bishop to use when ordaining priests. But for the most part, when the bishop sits it’s in the thronos outside the altar. The only other person I have ever seen use the thronos was the deacon if he is reading the gospel, and he stands. --Phiddipus 05:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your concern and your appreciation Csernica for the article on 1/0. I have to ask you however, how does 1/0 not have to do with the article on 1/0? Do you mean I should create a disambiguation page to delineate between the comic and the number? If so, can you please help me in doing this instead of just deleting the article? I'm not that new but I still don' know all of the tricks of the trade. Thanks in advance. Sincerely, germanium

It's better practice to ony revert once yourself, and let others do it as well, because of WP:3RR. CMummert 23:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that guy was pretty persistent. And just when you had convinced me I should be more friendly to him in the future... CMummert 03:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Robert Clarkson Clothier, quote or no quote. Use the history to see each one. Do you go to the Hungarian festival in New Brunswick? Enjoy you Xmass on Sunday. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC) You will have to come back and visit NJ. I just came back from Sacramento. SO quote box or no quote box in the article? Do you work on your family history too?Reply

Hi,Csernica . I was wondering if you could look at the John Chrysostom and make or suggest improvements. Thanks. Majoreditor 02:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC) mnewmanqc 21:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)==NJ Dialect== Great job! You seem uncertain about the house vowel. I'm not familiar with it, but it looks right, at least tentatively. mnewmanqc 13:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I should organize a field trip down there!!! Let's see if I can figure out how to get someone to give me money for it.;-

As for books, I'd look at Walt Wolfram and Natalie Schilling-Estes American English second edition. It's a textbook, but it's accessible. I think you're beyond Walt's American Voices, which has nothing technical at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mnewmanqc (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC).Reply

You told me about my Image:GRAM_Logo.gif. I did put a copyright on it, I created it. I created the logo and copyrighted it as well as the other logos: Image:GRAM_Games_Logo.gif and Image:Rumor_Productions_Logo.gif I don't have a licsence for them, but they are my creations and I copyrghted them. Is that good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Keyes (talk • contribs)

I revised the copyright tag. Is it okay now? It is a general copyright tag.

--Ryan ^TALK 18:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was sorry to see that you removed the link from the Raccoon page. I don't mean to quibble, but aren't MOST unofficial holidays invented by someone? And people do celebrate International Raccoon appreciation Day. But for peace-keeping sake, I'll leave the link off until it's been better documented or someone else adds it. Russia Moore 02:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info on the signature. I'll keep those directions in mind. About the copyright thing, I changed it. I sit ok now? I do have the images on the User:Gram productions page. Thanks.

--Ryan ^TALK 03:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I viewed your talk archives and noticed their wasn't any tag on there that says it is an archive and do not edit. I put one on both of your archives. The text should look like this: {{talkarchive}} and the tag will look like this:

--Ryan ^TALK 16:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:OCA-logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice. I probably don't want to put up with it, you're right.

--Ryan ^TALK 00:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have a new account on Wikimedia Commons. To visit my empty talk page, click here.

--Ryan ^TALK 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Your review of, and comments concerning, the section "Experiencing God" on the talk page of Christian mysticism would be appreciated. Thanks. --Midnite Critic 15:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are two: a Saint Moses who was a Christian era monk in Egypt I believe in the early days of monasticism, and Moses, THE Moses: as the Scriptures take for granted that he is in heaven, he would be a saint, even as older theology would have put him in Heaven only after the "Harrowing of Hell" and the emptying of the "Limbo of the Fathers" ...Western Christianity notes this but doesn't make much of it, while Byzantine Christians, I believe, are more apt to have icons and such on rare occasions of Old testament figures.HarvardOxon 23:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

In fact, in the Catholic Church there is a recognition of "saints by tradition," whose honoring precedes the medieval, centralized, formal procedure of canonization -- The apostles, barnabas, and other Biblical figures, in addition to patrick, Augustine, Antony Abbas, Pachomius etc., were never formally canonized by the Pope.HarvardOxon 23:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The Roman Martyrology includes the names of five persons called Moses. The most famous one, the one you are interested in at this moment, is mentioned on 4 September in the following terms (my unpolished translation): "The remembrance of Saint Moses (or holy Moses), the prophet, whom God chose to free the people oppressed in Egypt and lead them to the promised land, and to whom God revealed himself on Mount Sinai, saying: "I am who am" and gave him the Law to guide the life of the chosen people. This servant of God died, full of days, on Mount Nebo in the land of Moab within sight of the promised land."

The Roman Martyrology seems to include all the Old Testament prophets, at least all the better known ones, and so not only those who have books named after them, but also Elijah and Elisha. Lima 05:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It has been suggested that the above named project be renamed Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian saints. Please express your opinion on this proposed renaming, and the accompanying re-definition of the scope of the project, here. John Carter 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the comments! Majoreditor 07:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. May I trouble you to look at and possibly improve the article on intinction? The article says hardly mentions how intinction is practiced in the Eastern churches. Thanks! Majoreditor 02:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the help. Majoreditor 19:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I did a re-write of the "other religions" section of this article, based on our conversations at WP Saints. Would you mind having a look at it and seeing what you think? Thanks. - Pastordavid 17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your help. I'll look over your recommendations this weekend. -Yahuzs 17:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I dont think you should have removed that peice in the Lord of the Rings article, yes it did need some citations but it wasn't nonfactual, the observations made were completely correct and taken directly from the books. In my opinion there was not enough straight opinion or speculation to warrant an outright removal. Perhaps you should discuss the matter in the discussion page. Sultangris 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh. Well, you're wrong. Some of your "observations...taken directly from the books" weren't even from LotR, nor have you given sufficient thought to what you read to fully understand it. (For instance, if you think the Rohirrim were being portrayed as "good" in everything they'd ever done in their history, you've badly misread the text.) So out it goes. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. Not only did the information you removed NOT say that the Rohirrim have always been good, but actually says that they were, in fact, aligned with evil, at the beginning of the Lord of the Rings. Perhaps, before you accuse one of badly misreading the text, you should first correctly read their contributions. If you want to challenge the addition of this information, take it to the talk page.Ntchwaidumela 03:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I responded as briefly as I could to the original editor, since Talk pages aren't forums.Admitted that my stuff is no less OR than his/hers, but at least it's more supportable overall. What do real critics like Tom Shippey have to say? If we include this charge we should add their stuff. Uthanc 04:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Any chance this is real? Tolkien's writings in Candour, a right-wing magazine. Information from it has been added to the Orc (Middle-earth) article:

The dissolution of the British Empire was viewed by Tolkien as a tragedy, which would have permanent negative consequences for its indigenous populations:

‘Africa is not peopled by Black Europeans, but it is a continent full of tribes mentally and morally at the dawn of history.

‘Self-government does not mean democracy - Liberia and Abyssinia are two warning lights. African hegemony would lead to the suicide of the White community in East and Central Africa and to the ruin of African hopes of sustained progress.’ (3/10 August 1956, page 44)

If this was real, wouldn't we have heard of this by now?! Looking bad for non-white supremacist fans. (Cross-posted to User talk:CBDunkerson.) Uthanc 23:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Right now, it's been removed with VandalProof. Uthanc 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh. Okay. I guess I'm hyper-sensitive to such claims. The way the quotes were used in the Orc article was deceptive, then... Uthanc 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

If that is indeed the case, then the uploader themself needs to add information like this. An image description of "== Licensing == {{pd-self}}" is not sufficient information, and if you see any images tagged this way in future, they should be challenged. There needs to be at the very least a statement by the uploader confirming that they did indeed take the picture. Anyway, if that's a photo of an album, it is fair use, not PD. Chris cheese whine 00:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to tell you how appreciative I am of the helpful notes you have been giving me. I'm rather new at all this, and need all the helpful suggestions I can get. Please keep me in your prayers. MishaPan 05:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, also, for your help on the user page issue.Bearian 14:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for your support in the discussion over the inclusion of the nontrinitarian links. Now that the whole thing seems settled, for the most part, more productive changes can take place within the Trinity article. I'd like to take some time in defending the Trinity doctrine on Nontrinitarianism, but it seems like it would be a sour move at the moment, considering how long the discussion went on when it concerned the inclusion of links. I'm also unsure in general how much of a response/rebuttal is warranted... it isn't exactly "Criticisms of the Trinity", but the article practically serves that purpose. Anyway, thanks for your input.--C.Logan 01:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Am I the only one who finds the sudden appearance of an article ex nihilo to be slightly dodgy? InfernoXV 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Csernica. Thanks for input on tolkiengateway.net. If you're interested, come join us at WikiProject Spam and help fight linkspammers on Wikipedia. --Hu12 00:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Article has passed as GA. -- Pastordavid 20:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. I was wondering if you could tell me about an example where a succession box led to fancruft. I have my own ideas about how this may occur but I wanted to ear about a specific example. Thanks in advance.--Dr who1975 04:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I see you caught the rest of the vandalism there - sorry I was trying to rv it all but couldn't be certain I'd got the lot. Thanks and happy editing. Pedro |  Chat  19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here's the example I offered on WP:MCQ. It's pretty rough, but you get the idea.

Here's the code I used to create it:

<div class="thumb tleft">
<div class="thumbinner" style="width:392px;">
{| style="margin-left:1px;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0"
|[[Image:Valtazar Bogisic.jpg|none|65px|Baltazar Bogišić]]
|[[Image:Boroevic.jpg|none|65px|Svetozar Boroević]]
|[[Image:280px-MilutinMilankovic.PNG|none|65px|Milutin Milanković]]
|[[Image:N.Tesla.JPG|none|65px|Nikola Tesla]]
|[[Image:Patrijarh Pavle.jpg|none|65px|Patriarch Pavle]]
|[[Image:Rade s.JPG|none|65px|Rade Šerbedžija]]
|}
<div class="thumbcaption">Famous Serbs who emerged from the territory of today's
[[Croatia]], from left to right: [[Baltazar Bogišić]], [[Svetozar Boroević]],
[[Milutin Milanković]], [[Nikola Tesla]], [[Patriarch Pavle]],
[[Rade Šerbedžija]]</div>
</div>
</div>

These aren't the same images you used since I didn't take a lot of time to look for them, but used the first image from the articles on each person. Boško Buha is missing since his article has no image.

Also, for this to work out as the other one did they need to be cropped so that they all have the same aspect ratio. I believe that's possible without violating fair use rules, since it's not enough of a change to create a derivative work. It's possible to specify a maximum height in the Image syntax, but that makes the widths, and therefore the total width of the box which you have to specify, not so easy to figure out.

Some hints:

• The width set in the <div class="thumbinner" style="width:392px;> line needs to be 2 pixels larger than the total width of all the images put together. Total width here is 65×6=390 pixels, so we specify 392 pixels here.
• The 1px left margin on the table is necessary to center the images in the box. This is normally handled by a class attribute on the image itself, but this is not available to us with this method since we must use Wiki syntax to specify the image.
• You can change the alignment on the page by altering <div class="thumb tleft">, which places it on the left, to <div class="thumb tright">, which places it on the right. To center, use <div class="thumb tnone"> and then enclose the entire block of code with a <div class="center">...</div> pair.
• Normally the text would flow around the box just as it does for normal images. To preserve clarity here I used <br clear=all> to prevent that, which is probably not what you want in an article.

One caveat is that this depends on the style definitions currently supported by Wikipedia. Normally these are invisible to editors, but are used automatically to generate the XHTML rendered by your browser from the Wiki markup you normally use. These styles may change at some future time, which could break this code. It's not likely to happen anytime soon, but I thought I should mention it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thank you :D. It is an interesting idea, I personally love it - it looks like it could be a much better solution then compositions (provided there is a template, naturally ;)). Do you think this usage would still fall under fair use? --Branislav Jovanovic 07:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This method in the general case should certainly come under fair use as long as the images themselves fulfill the necessary criteria in the article where they're used. This isn't a derivative work as a single composited image would be; it's just a layout method. The only modification you'd have to do is to crop them to fit properly -- as I said, you want each image to have the same aspect ratio so that for the same width they all have the same height -- but I don't believe cropping creates a derivative work since no new work is being added. I'll bring it up on the questions page though, to see if others agree with me.

I'll put some work into creating a template regardless of the answer, since this might be useful even for freely licensed images. That's another kettle of fish entirely, since I take advantage of an "undocumented feature" or two. One of them is really a bug, since you're not supposed to be able to specify the image size on anything but a thumbnail, but I'm not using thumbnails here. If it gets fixed, this will break. I should probably contact the programming staff. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to respond to a few things you wrote regarding Jesus as myth in the Noah's Ark discussion page. I'm not sure why you wrote about it on that page, but I might have to read back through several kilobytes of discussion to figure it out. I didn't want to further the conversation there, since you were attempting to calm down Codex, who is testing the patience of numerous editors. A couple of items that you wrote:

Jesus, however, lived during history.

• No contemporary proof, meaning there isn't one tiny piece of evidence written at the time of his life that indicates this person existed. If there is, certainly no one has brought it forward. Sorry.

He is placed in a specific cultural context that we can identify and which seems in most details we can examine via archaeology to be accurate.

• OK, but that's not proof of his existence. Later writers, who might have created this person, must have known that cultural context, or they would have failed.

We can't say exactly what he did from the historical record, but that's true of nearly all people from that period.

• Really? Many less famous personages are known a lot better from both historical record and archaeological evidence.

Scripture says he lived right about the time we would have expected him to have based on the available evidence (e.g. stylistic analysis of the New Testament). We have little reason to doubt he actually existed even from an atheist POV.

• Well, I'm not an atheist, but I am amongst a larger number of people who doubt his existence, given the total lack of historical proof. Contemporary evidence of his existence is notably lacking, so much so if you consider what he was supposed to have done.

Some do, but in contrast to the situation with Noah, it is those who think Jesus is ahistorical who are in the minority. To state it in the most minimal possible terms, the historical existence of Jesus is credible.

• Credible? Doubtful at this time. Once again, the lack of evidence is kind of telling. Of course, prior to Darwin, the majority view, even amongst scientists was that some supernatural being controlled the development of life on the planet. The minority view now could be the majority view some day.

Yes, I am a serious skeptic of the existence of this man. When I was younger, as a Jew, I was taught that he existed but he was merely a Rabbi. I don't even believe that he existed at all now. Anyways, I actually was responding to the atheist POV comment, since I am not an atheist, and I really believe that Jesus was a myth created for unknown reasons. As a Jew, do you know what this may mean--millions of my ancestors were killed over 2000 years in the name of a myth. That's really troubling about my minority point of view. Orangemarlin 04:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

You seriously brightened a Milton Keynes morning. I return the compliment in exactly the same terms. Cheers! —Ian Spackman 09:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Namaste. I was intrigued by a comment you made on the Trimurti article: "The intro asserts that Trimurti is similar to the "traditional view" of the Christian Trinity, yet the illustrative quote from Swami Sivananda describes a view that corresponds to modalism, which was rejected as heretical in the third century. Is there some other source that illustrates this differently, so as to justify the statement in the intro? TCC" I am wondering if this question still interests you, and if so, if it would be worth discussing here or better yet on the talk page for the article, which is not very well referenced. In fact the Trimurti system was something of an Western "packaging" of some Hindu ideas more than a Hindu tradition. Few Hindu texts mention it, and it never really caught on as an element of devotional practice. I have been thinking about adding some of these points to the article. Buddhipriya 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply. I am quite interested in interfaith perspectives. Like Christianity, Hinduism is a complex religion with many different points of view within it. Lately I have been wondering how to get more Christian readers on some of the Hinduism articles simply to help read them for neutral point of view and to help recognize any material that does not make much sense to a non-Hindu. Do you know of any interfact project on Wikipedia that might pertain to this issue? Buddhipriya 02:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

While it's usually true that the indefinite article should be "an" if the word following begins with a vowel letter, there are times where this is not the case as with this edit: [1]. "Euchological" as normally pronounced in English begins with the same consonant sound as "you" and "yes", like "eureka" and "euphony", and so the preceding article should be "a", not "an". See the usage note here [2]. I wonder if this is a uniform enough rule for words beginning in "eu" that it should be made a general exception? TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi TCC, thanks for noticing that. You are, of course, quite right. I've run across many 'eu' words before, and I haven't seen a single case where it should be preceeded by 'an' rather than 'a'. Before now, I just created specific exceptions for the individual words ('euro', 'eurocard', 'eurofighter', 'europop', and so on, ad nauseam), but I think it's about time I made a specific rule in my bot to handle it. Cheers, CmdrObot 18:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I saw your discussion on Allenroyboy's page so I left you a comment.

Rush4hire 15:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, but I'm really not interested in a discussion about strawmen, or with people ascribing motives to me that I do not own. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow. I never imagined you'd read it the same day. I'm teary..

But I don't understand what you mean about "strawmen" and "ascribing motives" and "not interested". Please explain the context of these terms. Thank you. Rush4hire 12:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I saw that User Talk page and I thought it was a huge debate, but just now I looked at the page where it comes from: Talk:Noah's Ark. That is HUGE, and it was only started 6 weeks ago. Codex Sinaiticus had some conflicts, but he seems like a fruitful contributor.

Looks like a topic that's just wore out. This conflict happened throughout the last 6 weeks, but how many times has the same debate arisen?

You have so many brainy guys saying "It didn't happen. We're too smart to believe that. Furthermore, how are we going to convert people if we claim to believe such an unbelievable story. Science has proved it's a parable."

Then you have the God fearing ones that will die before they even slightly compromise their faith. These are the same types who where fed to lions in the Roman Coliseum because they refused to toss one tiny pinch of incense on a pagan alter.

This same kind of debate has happend all througout human history. It is like the debate between Cain and Abel.

Rush4hire 17:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey I was wanting to know if you could help out with some of the Orthodox theology pages? LoveMonkey 18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

SWEET! Please chew up my additions to theoria. I was hoping to make the article more direct and concise. LoveMonkey 19:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Csernica. We've been working on Gregory the Theologian and will have it ready for GA review once we finish cleanup and add some cites. Would you care to look at it? Much appreciated. Majoreditor 18:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping. I saw the issue you mentioned and will take corrective action. Majoreditor 03:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm once again busy with Gregory the Theologian. I added a paragraph on Gregory's contributions to the concepts of hypostasis and theosis. Although I've drawn from a reliable source I'd appreciate it if you could look though my most recent edit to ensure that I've got it right. I'm no theologian and certainly not well-versed in these doctrines. Thanks. Majoreditor 02:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. The discussion is interesting, but I guess you realize it has relevance only to us personally, not to the article. And it's very long already.

You are right, every change can not be accepted right away. In fact, people educated in one mindset would likely change only very little their view till they die. But the point is that with every generation people are educated slightly differently, and per total the society does change, although the individuals do not change their oppinions (they simply die). I am from Eastern Europe, and I have seen how much things have changed in 20 years, even in less than one generation. If you would asked me 15-20 years ago, I would have not believed.

So, I guess some in Vatican want to create a new atmosphere in which the next generation of Catholics is just starting to grow. When those people will be in their 50s-60s and influential, let us see then! They would have lived all their life with the recognition that filioque etc would have to eventually go. Unlike today's higher clergy, they will be much more likely to compromize. I do recognize the difficulties posed by the issues of purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, Papal infallibility etc. My point is, people with different mindsets/educations would assign less and less weight to those issue in exchange to more an more weight of the church as the moral pillar for the society, and Catholic church will eventually call them misteries/unknowns, not facts.

We, Orthodox Christians also will change our mindsets with new generations: we will recognize that the split is temporary, and that as soon as the issues we talk about are dealt with, then the re-union is the only way to go. We will no longer talk about "a possibility if they ...", but about "a certainty immediately as they ..." There are hundreds of millions of Orhtodox and one billion Catholics. There are those who will never want or even accept re-union, and those who are ecumenic. The dialog and the agreement reached will never be all with all, but the good majority with the good (in the sense of "big") majority. Church being a more "educated" are that society, noone will call the "hardliners" extremists, everyone will simply wait till they die out.

You see, to whom did Jesus Christ address his message: not only to the clergy, but to every honest person's inner mind. The purpose of the church is, IMO, that eventually to reach everybody. Not to impose anything on people, but simply be always ready to support, to give a sense of community lasting from before times till after the end of times. The purpose of the church is, IMO, to serve bringing people closer to God. - Not to worship God, b/c God has no need for our worships, He wants our good, not His good, He alaways was and will be good, it's about us not Him. -- And not to define "abstract theology" without any practical relation (as filioque or immaculate conception for example do), but only that which is sound and relevant, and helping creating a common spirit for the society. B/c the God has known the answer to filioque and immaculate conception before the times, and because people will never know the answer until the end of times. Therefore who supports it would eventually drop it - it is like the truth, white or black, drop or carry.

As for the councils, God has worked miracles that by far exceded this. I don't think it will be a problem for Him to arrange the things. :Dc76 19:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Reply

I have removed the image from the article, and assume that the image will be deleted shortly.

I'll add another image if I find one in public domain -- but so far I've had little luck. Should you happen across one please point me to it. Thanks. Majoreditor 02:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for locating another image. Majoreditor 02:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Csernica. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:280px-MilutinMilankovic.PNG) was found at the following location: User:Csernica/Sandbox/Small gallery code/testbed. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 00:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You may be interested in the current discussion about the meaning of the word and the extent to which the article should address persons of exceptional holiness in non-Christian traditions. Pastor David ^† 15:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You may be interessted to know why Joseph was most likely a stonemason. This is not a pet theory, but is accepted by many theologians today, the most prominent I can point you to being Prof. Bruce Malina of Creighton University or Prof. Richard L. Rohrbaugh of Lewis & Clark College. The Bible states Joseph was "tekton," a builder. Not specifically a carpenter. Three things suggest he was a stonemason. Carpentry was a rare profession at the time, wood was and is scarce in the region, and nearly all buildings at the time were built of stone or mud (in the Middle East & all around the Mediteranian). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.97.202 (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

Hi! I understand from your note that you believe that points of view should be weighted based on their correspondance with "objective evidence" and that POVs not corresponding with the "objective evidence" should be discounted. I believe the Arbitration Committee addressed what appears to me to be a similar perspective in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2#Wikisunn, ArbCom stated that

The posts by Wikisunn display a tendency to discount reliable sources if they differ from his own conclusions, "I know there are alot of authors / Webmasters either praising or defaming Sai Baba. But they can be treated as reliable source only, when the real facts / reality matches with their claims. By that what I meant is, if there is no truth in their statements and there is no connection between what they are saying and what is really happening in Baba's ashram then they are not reliable sources.

Arbcom expressly held that it is improper to judge reliable sources based on their degree of correspondence with what an editor regards as "the real facts /reality" and "what is really happening". I don't see the difference between what an editor regards as "the real facts / reality" and what an editor regards as "the objective evidence." In either case, I believe WP:NPOV precludes making such judgments. Science and religion often involve different methods of drawing conclusions about reality from combinations of authority and observed experience. I beleive it's definitely the business of Wikipedia to clarify which conclusion is based on which method, so it's important to say clearly that "theologian A say believes X" and "scientist B concludes Y" and not to misrepresent a religious claim as a scientific one, or vice versa. However, I understand the WP:NPOV policy and ArbCom's rulings to indicate that it isn't the business of Wikipedia to judge between different worldviews. In many encyclopedias a scientific perspective is the editorial position, but in Wikipedia it's simply one view. On a specifically religious topic like Noah's Ark, religious and theological views have greater notability and relevance to the topic, and therefore (I believe) deserve more weight, than they would in an article on, say, the Big Bang Theory or Charles Darwin. Best, --Shirahadasha 07:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think it's perfectly legitimate to talk about a religious belief that something really happened as an historical event. I don't beleive Wikipedia can judge whether religious beliefs are real or not. One has to word these things carefully. Best, --Shirahadasha 03:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'm concerned here solely with what is required by Wikipedia policies, not with what what you or I personably believe. notability and verifiability are not the same thing as truth. It's perfectly consistent with those policies to include the well-sourced fact that many religious people regard the Flood as an historical event and that according to this position, it is true. It's also perfectly consistent to point out the fact that most geologists etc. disagree. The problem is any attempt to editorially choose between the two based on an editor's own view of "the truth". If you wish to convince me that Wikipedia policies are otherwise, I encourage you to discuss the Wikipedia policies in any reply. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

TCC, thank you for your kind words in support of my RfA, which closed successfully yesterday. Please feel free to drop me a note any time if there is anything that I might be able to do for you. Pastordavid 16:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Csernica, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Rade s.JPG) was found at the following location: User:Csernica/Sandbox/Small gallery code/testbed. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to respond earlier, but I wasn’t sure if I should ever address you again, because you seemed very offended. But I find you an interesting subject. You’re a computer programmer like me, (but more advanced), you have a semblance of devotion, as far as I can tell, and you like KJV like me. If I have offended you, then I hope you will accept my apology.

The bible does say a lot of things about the motivations of people, and I really didn’t intend to direct any verses at you personally. I really want to have a prophet's eye view of the human race.

When I saw the discussion I noted that evidence was being given by both sides, and I felt a desire to step outside of that perspective for a bit and give my own testimony of how the Lord has led in my life concerning these issues. Since the time I wrote that I have had a fascination to study Creation Science, and I have had some overwhelming discoveries; treasures which I would like to share.

Matthew 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe [which is] instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man [that is] an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure [things] new and old.

Before I began to gather research, I suspected that there was already tons of evidence that would easily bury the Evolution Theory because it is a man-made theory designed by atheists to conveniently do away with moral responsibility to an intelligent Creator. I realized that Adolf Hitler was huge fan of Evolution and thereby thought he was doing a good thing for mankind by eliminating the Jews, (but he only killed ~6 million). Next on his list was the blacks. His intention was to take over the whole world and progressively eliminate “inferior” races. Of course there have been many other attempted genocides in the cause of progressing humanity by eliminating “weaker” races. Some people may still sympathize with this cause. We would call these racists and Neo-Nazis.

• “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world.” Charles Darwin, The descent of Man, chapter 3 and World Book Encyclopedia 1852, p. 336
• “thus from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows.” Charles Darwin The Origin of Species… p. 243
• “The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year old youth of the species Homo sapiens.” Henry Fairfield Osborn – Outspoken evolutionist and Curator of The American Museum of Natural History, New York
• “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.” Thomas Huxley (known as Darwin’s bulldog) 1871
• Here’s a “theistic” evolutionist: “The Black People of Australia, exactly the same race as the African Negro, cannot take in the gospel… All attempts to bring them to a knowledge of the true God have as yet failed utterly... Poor brutes in human shape… they must perish off the face of the earth like brute beasts” Kingsley C. Sermons on Natural Subjects Sermon XLI pp. 414-17, 1886, Charles Kingsley, an Anglican Priest who promoted Darwin.

A lot of people seem to feel more free if they convince themselves there is no Creator, but that people have evolved and just make their own gods and religions.

• "With this single argument the mystery of the universe is explained, the Deity annulled, and a new era of infinite knowledge ushered in.” Ernst Haeckel (“The Riddle of the Universe,” 1899, p. 337.) (_{This guy must have been high on PCP or something. The theory he was explaining assumed that living cells are very simple. This was before molecular biology.})
• “I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” Thomas Huxley
• “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired” Aldous Huxley

But I’ve already explained why fallen man would want such a thing, and at the start I suspected, though I had not done so much research yet, there was already overwhelming evidence to verify the biblical account of creation and the flood. Discussing the evidence may persuade some, but never all. Jesus made it plain that no amount of evidence will persuade those that are not willing to be persuaded.

• “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” (Matthew 16:31)

Here are more bad quotes.

There’s really no way to prove God created life on this earth in 6 days and destroyed all air breathing creatures with a flood, but there’s also no way to prove that life created itself over billions of years. I would be more inclined to accept the former because of the righteousness taught by God and the promise of eternal life to those who prove they can handle it.

The latter theory promises nothing and teaches no kind of morality, just “survival of the fittest”. If men are convinced they are animals they will behave like animals in contrast to those who will strive to live up to the “Image of God” idea, as it is defined in the Bible.

If overwhelming evidence where required for us to take God at His word, He would have created Adam first, but instead Adam was created very last, and then God told him He created everything. God even put a deep sleep on Adam before He created Eve. Maybe God wanted to surprise his child. We wrap up gifts for our children, right? So God decides to not provide overwhelming evidence because the eternal life He has promised is a surprise and He really wants us to take Him at His Word? That’s one theory…

But when I see this world, I see a wreck. No one would observe a wrecked car and think: “Why would a car manufacturer put out a wrecked car?” It should be assumed that the thing was created perfect and got wrecked somehow. That’s exactly what the bible tells us happened to this earth. Is there any book more reliable than the bible?

The theory of evolution runs into many problems as new evidence is discovered. Nevertheless the scientists don’t budge, but act as if they didn’t even hear or see the evidence. Theories in school text books have been disproved, but they are never removed from the books, in spite of state laws which say things like textbooks shall be “..factually accurate and incorporate principals of instruction reflective of current and confirmed research.” _{California Education code 60200 © 3}

It is a fact that the earth’s rotation and orbit around the sun is slowing gradually at a constant rate, making the day and year longer by about 1 millisecond every day. Wind that back millions of years ago and the earth was spinning and orbiting the sun pretty fast. It’s ridiculous to say life could have survived in those conditions. If any thing decided to start evolving itself into existence here, it would have been thrown off by centrifugal force.

The moon also increases it’s distance from the earth by ~1 inch every revolution. Was the moon part of the earth millions of years ago? Furthermore, the magnetic field is growing weaker at a significant rate. No life could have endured the heat generated by what the magnetic field would have been 44,000 years ago.

If that’s not enough, the continents are eroding at a rate that would level them in much less than 25 million years. The ocean is now 3.6% salt, but the continual washing of mineral salts into the ocean increases its salt content. The oceans could easily have been completely fresh water 5000 years ago. Is this enough time for “natural selection” to adapt all those creatures to salt water?

The human population growth can be extrapolated back to one family ~4200 years ago. If people had been populating for millions of years, there would be bones everywhere, and the population would be inconceivable.

The Grand Canyon must have been formed within a few weeks by the over-spilling of a very large lake left after the recession of the flood. This is the simplest explanation. The large lake eventually broke one of it’s borders and erosion quickly took down the dam and carved out the canyon, washing the sediment over the state of Arizona. This explains why there is no huge river delta at the end of the Arizona River like there would be if all this sediment eroded gradually over millions of years. Also the river’s current source is lower than the top of the canyon which is a big problem for the “millions of years” theory.
This kind of thing has been observed many times and can easily be recreated on a smaller scale.
In spite of these recent discoveries, the old “millions of years” theories are still used.
A lot of canyons where formed after during the Mount St. Helens ordeal. There’s one called “The Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle” because it’s a 1/40th scale model of the Grand Canyon. A temporary lake was formed when a landslide dammed up the river, which remained for 22 months, until another landslide came, causing the lake to break it’s dam and three canyons where formed over a 9 hour period, while the water made it’s way to the Pacific. Each of these are about 100 feet deep.

Evolutionary geologists assigned long periods of time to the formation of the 16,000 square mile Channeled Scablands of Eastern Washington. In the ‘70’s they finally acknowledged that this vast geologic formation which includes the Grand Coulee was formed mostly in two days as a result of a catastrophic event. Catastrophic events best explain the great erosionary formations on the earth’s surface. The histories of nearly 300 people groups speak of an event adequate to the job--the Global Flood.” (_{same page.})

So what about the fossil record? It’s called a record because it is assumed that a worldwide flood never happened, but those layers show a gradual build up over millions of years. But it can be demonstrated that if you had the carcasses of all those creatures, mollusks, fish, dinosaurs, birds, mammals, and mixed them up in an enormous amount of water, sediment and mud, they would settle in roughly that order. But really, they are not often found in such a way. In fact the fossils are dated by the layers, but then the layers are dated by the fossils, is a perfect example of circular reasoning. The trilobite, thought to be extinct for 300-500 million years is considered a good “index fossil”. The only problem is they are not extinct, as was supposed. These would settle to the bottom because of their density and shape.

Somehow it was assumed these layers give evidence of long periods of time. But there are no erosion patterns between the layers, and in some parts of the earth are found giant petrified trees sticking up through all layers. The simplest assumption is there was a flood and that’s how the sediments settled and then hardened. This can be demonstrated in aquarium or even a glass. Just put some mud and sand other junk and water and mix it up. When it settles, you will see layers. The flood was not a gentle shower over the earth, but “that same day...all the fountains of the great deep where broken up”. Most of the water came from under the earth and during this process many geological changes occurred. The naked mountains, rock formations, canyons, and deep sea crevasses where not there before the flood. There was also no erosion because it didn’t rain. The world today resembles God’s original design, but is greatly damaged.

If someone says fossil bones are carbon dated, I would say carbon dating is not the method used to determine how old the fossils are, but they are dated according to where they are found in the rock strata, and many dates are assigned according to presupposed theories. Living penguins have been dated to be over 2000 years old, one part of a mammoth body dates 10,000 years while the other part of the same body dates 22,000 years. Your fingernails could date to 3000 years, but you wouldn’t go around telling people your fingernails are 3000 years old!

Petrifaction doesn’t take millions of years as many items have been found petrified that couldn’t have been very old, like dogs, sacks of flour, boots, hammers, pickles, and other things. The trees destroyed by Mount St. Helens are already petrified. Other mineral formations, such as stalactites and stalagmites, which are assumed to take millions of years to form, have been found on people’s cars and sheds.

Recently fresh, non-petrified dinosaur bones have found as well as fresh, soft tissue inside of petrified dinosaur bones.

Ice core samples are drilled out of Greenland and Antarctica containing rings which are assumed to be “annual rings”. The drilling goes 10,000 feet down and 135,000 rings have been counted, which would represent 135,000 years assuming that one ring forms each year. I suspect it’s easy for many rings to form each year. A light ring represents lightly packed snow, and a dark ring represents snow that got warm and refroze. How can educated scientists assume this happens only one time per year. Any high school drop out would figure it would snow and melt 50 or so times per year.

The Lost Squadron: Eight war planes crash landed on Greenland’s east coast in 1942, during World War II. In 1980 someone set out to find them, but it took 8 years of searching with radar. They where finally found under 263 feet of ice! This accumulated in only 46 years, about 5.7 feet per year. At this rate the 10,000 feet of ice could have been accumulated in only 1754 years. That gives us 2646 years to goof around.

Is there anything that can be proven to be over 4,400 years old? The oldest plant is 4,300 years old. The oldest desert, the Saharah is estimated to be 4,000 years old according to the current rate of desertification. The oldest coral reef is estimated to be about 4,200 years old.

“Look at all the pictures of the skulls lined up in a certain way, and the horses lined up with the smallest to the left, and the embryos all lined up. This has to prove something. It’s taught everywhere in the whole world.'”, I can hear people saying. It’s propaganda. It’s real easy to draw pictures. A lot of skulls have been taken from aborigines which had various skull structures. Some of those bones are fake. The Nebraska Man was created by a single tooth, which was later found to be a pig’s tooth. Lucy was created from a bunch of shattered bones which could have been those of a child or an ape. Neanderthal man was just an old man with arthritis in his back.
The horse model has been proven false.
It has been proven false that humans have gills when in fetus stage.

It is taught that humans and animals have vestigial parts, things they no longer use, and this is evidence of previous stages in their evolution. But some of these have a purpose.

• Concerning the appendix in humans: “The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system.” _{Frederic H. Martini, Ph.D., Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology, p. 916, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1995} Even if something is found to not have a purpose, it could also be seen as something that was needed before the curse of sin.
• The human tail bone is necessary because muscles are attached to it which are used in certain functions.
• Whales have little fins which don’t seem to have a purpose. Students are taught that these are signs that the whale once had feet and walked on land. Scientists later observed that these little fins are used in mating.
• Snakes have little hooks which where supposed to demonstrate that they once had feet. These also are used for mating.

Evolution and Big Bang go against established scientific laws.

• Law of entropy: Everything tends toward chaos, nothing organizes itself over time.
• Adding energy to anything is destructive. The only thing to use the sun’s energy is chlorophyll which is extremely complex. Mark my words: Scientists will never be able to create even the most simple form of life in a laboratory.
• Centrifugation: The little dot that exploded to create the Big Bang was supposed to be spinning. If that’s the case, everything in the universe would be spinning the same way, but of course it’s not.

Concerning the flood..

I have heard many weird arguments to disprove the flood story.

1. There is not enough water to cover the mountains
This assumes the mountains have always been this tall and the ocean always as deep as it is. Here’s a video, _(lo-fi), that demonstrates how many geological changes occurred during the flood, which produced very high mountains and very deep oceans. The good part begins about 30 minutes in, when Dr. Walter Brown starts talking about the “Hydroplate Theory”. Then there’s a nice cinematic. He estimates the force produced by the “fountains of the great deep” breaking up world wide, in one day, was greater than that of 10 billion hydrogen bombs.

2. The huge boat couldn’t have held up.
I agree. The only thing I can find on that is in Patriarcs and Prophets, Chapter 7; The Flood: “All that man could do was done to render the work perfect, yet the ark could not of itself have withstood the storm which was to come upon the earth. God alone could preserve His servants upon the tempestuous waters.”
I don’t agree that they didn’t have iron for “she also bare Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron..” (Genesis 4:22)
I don’t agree with the idea they had an average lifespan of 40 years and that they counted a month for a year. If that’s the case the guys mentioned in Genesis 5 started having children when they where 60-70 months, (5 years?), old. How hard is it to believe people once lived for more than 900 years if mankind was origionally created to live forever?
Noah took 120 years to build a boat that could have been done in much less time because God gave them that time to be sure they wanted to reject the righteousness Noah preached. “Noah. [was] a preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5)

3. The coal and oil couldn’t have been made from organisms that where destroyed all at once.
“At this time immense forests were buried. These have since been changed to coal, forming the extensive coal beds that now exist, and also yielding large quantities of oil.” (_{Patriarchs and Prophets, Chapter 8; After the Flood})
These forests where very large. The billions of trees must have existed from creation, until that time, so they would be 1600 year old trees. Those trees may have been more than 50 times more massive than trees today.

4. How can there be such a diversification of species in only 4400 years.
The animals must have went nuts. They could just keep traveling and keep having babies which would have babies themselves and so on. The had the whole earth to themselves and God gave them the commission to populate it. “” Gen 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Gen 9:7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
I don’t think animals started eating each other until the earth was full. We have to remember the animals all started out eating herbs.
Mankind seemed reluctant or fearful of spreading out and overtaking the whole earth so God nudged them a little bit by confounding their languages. It is believed that Ham went south to fill up Africa, Shem went east to start the Asian population and Japheth went north to settle the European and New World parts, (Europe, then Natives of the Americas). It probably still wasn’t extremely cold in the northern regions and extremely cold in the southern regions.

I don’t think environmental adaptations take countless generations to occur. There are just some things we should admit we don’t know much about. It’s much better to be humble than to wage a war against The Word of God.

5 A quote like this: “So when someone says the worldwide flood recorded in Genesis really happened as a historical event, and that a single man and his family actually built a large ship to preserve humankind and breeding specimens of all the world's animals, he steps outside the religious worldview and into the areas where geology and other earth sciences, archaeology, engineering, biology, and physics have something to contribute. These disciplines, both singly and together, tell us that it simply did not happen.”

Firstly, it’s not safe to assume that all such experts are atheist.

The “experts” are funded with government money. If any individual among them ever shows a thread of doubt about established theories like Evolution or the Big Bang, he will be fired, or he won’t get funded. The government has invested billions into such research. They are not about to change theories and see all that funding have gone to waste. If individuals are happy with state issued religions, then that’s fine, but for those who want the good stuff, you have to go searching: “seek and ye shall find..”
I’m reminded of the “experts” in Babylon: “The secret which the king hath demanded cannot the wise [men], the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, show unto the king; But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets” (Daniel 2:27–28)

Yes, Evolution, including cosmic evolution, (Big Bang), is state funded religion. They don’t make much sense as explanations for the origins of things, but it’s the best people can do to explain thins independent of the inspired Word of God.

Popularity is not a test of truth. Religious leaders in Jesus’ day came up with many reasons to reject Him. One of those was: “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?” (John 7:48)

Here’s a page with seven videos with a lot of nice information. I watched them all. Very entertaining too.

It is often assumed that the bible is in opposition to science, but on the contrary, the bible is very scientific, and observations in nature should bring one closer to God rather than place one in rebellion against.

How many times have individual scientists achieved temporary fame when they assigned a new number to the stars? Potolomy said 1056, Pico Broth said 777, Kepler said 1005, In the 17th century before the telescope the established number was 5119 stars. Now the number of visible stars is 70 septillion? The bible says the stars are without number. (Jer 33:22, Gen 15:5; 22:17)

Job knew the earth floats in space: “He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing. ” (Job 26:7) Isaiah knew the earth was round: “[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth” (Isaiah 44:22)

I think of the bloodletting practice that resulted in the death of George Washington. This could have been prevented if they would have known: “For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood” (Lev 17:11)

The laws of washing and quarantine are found all through Leviticus when dealing with leprosy and other diseases. These principles are understood by doctors today, but it wasn’t always so in secular hospitals and many perished because the spread of diseases through microbes was not understood.

People can benefit greatly by observing simple health laws in the bible.

• Man started with a simple diet of unrefined, natural foods: fruits, grains, nuts, and legumes {{Gen 1:29}}
  • herbs where added after sin and animal flesh after the flood.
• Exercise was required after sin: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread (Gen 3:19)
• The eating of fat and blood is condemned. Not many eat blood today, but they love fat. And they get heart disease.

The bible teaches that having a positive attitude will be beneficial to ones health:
Prov 17:22 “A merry heart doeth good like a medicine, but a broken spirit dryeth the bones”
Prov 14:30 “A sound heart is the life of the flesh: but envy the rottenness of the bones.”

If folks are taught to trust the bible, they can learn what it takes to stay healthy. It is shear folly to assume that people had a shorter lifespan in those day because they didn’t have the medical care we have today.

And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How old [art] thou?
And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage [are] an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage. (Gen 47:8-9)

At the bottom of this page is a collection of quotes from Nobel Prize winning scientists who believe Creation is the only way to explain things.

Proverbs 9:10 “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.“

Revelation 11 foretells the rise of the atheist revolutions, which later developed into Communism and Nazism. The rise of the Theory of Evolution plays a big part in this.

Rev 11:4,7-10 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and a half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.
10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

There’s no doubt the two witnesses are the Bible, Old and New Testiment, Law and the Prophets represented by Moses and Elijah, the two witnesses that visited Jesus. Elijah shut up heaven so there was a famine and Moses turned the water to blood and brought the plagues on Egypt.
The term “bottomless pit” is translated from the Greek work “abussos” which means “abyss”. When Jesus cast out a legion of demons in Luke8:31 KJV the begged him not to cast them into the abyss, (abussos). So we know this is a satanic, (atheistic), power.

Sodom would represent the licentiousness as well as pleasure and entertainment loving social elements. Also a despising of godliness.

• Genesis 13:13 But the men of Sodom [were] wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.
• Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
• Genesis 19:9 This one [fellow] came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them.

Egypt displays character traits of racism, superiority, slavery, and bold defiance against the authority of God.

• Exodus 5:2 And Pharaoh said, Who [is] the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.
• Genesis 43:32 because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that [is] an abomination unto the Egyptians.
• Genesis 46:34 for every shepherd [is] an abomination unto the Egyptians

The best description of this I have found, is in The Great Controversy, Chapter 15; The Bible and the French Revolution

Here are a few quotes:

“But here is brought to view a new manifestation of satanic power… --the beast from the bottomless pit--was to arise to make open, avowed war upon the word of God.”

This is atheism, and the nation represented by Egypt would give voice to a similar denial of the claims of the living God and would manifest a like spirit of unbelief and defiance.”

According to the words of the prophet, then, a little before the year 1798 some power of satanic origin and character would rise to make war upon the Bible. And in the land where the testimony of God's two witnesses should thus be silenced, there would be manifest the atheism of the Pharaoh and the licentiousness of Sodom.

This prophecy has received a most exact and striking fulfillment in the history of France. During the Revolution, in 1793, "the world for the first time heard an assembly of men, born and educated in civilization, and assuming the right to govern one of the finest of the European nations, uplift their united voice to deny the most solemn truth which man's soul receives, and renounce unanimously the belief and worship of a Deity."--Sir Walter Scott, Life of Napoleon, vol. 1, ch. 17. "France is the only nation in the world concerning which the authentic record survives, that as a nation she lifted her hand in open rebellion against the Author of the universe. Plenty of blasphemers, plenty of infidels, there have been, and still continue to be, in England, Germany, Spain, and elsewhere; but France stands apart in the world's history as the single state which, by the decree of her Legislative Assembly, pronounced that there was no God, and of which the entire population of the capital, and a vast majority elsewhere, women as well as men, danced and sang with joy in accepting the announcement."--Blackwood's Magazine, November, 1870.

The worship of the Deity was abolished by the National Assembly. Bibles were collected and publicly burned with every possible manifestation of scorn… The institutions of the Bible were abolished. The weekly rest day was set aside, and in its stead every tenth day was devoted to reveling and blasphemy. Baptism and the Communion were prohibited.

..All religious worship was prohibited, except that of liberty and the country.

When error in one garb has been detected, Satan only masks it in a different disguise, and multitudes receive it as eagerly as at the first. When the people found Romanism to be a deception, and he could not through this agency lead them to transgression of God's law, he urged them to regard all religion as a cheat, and the Bible as a fable; and, casting aside the divine statutes, they gave themselves up to unbridled iniquity.

Rev 11:11 And after three days and a half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. Rev 11:12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

This has very negative results on the nation of France:

“Little did the rulers of the land foresee the results of that fateful policy. The teaching of the Bible would have implanted in the minds and hearts of the people those principles of justice, temperance, truth, equity, and benevolence which are the very cornerstone of a nation's prosperity. "Righteousness exalteth a nation." Thereby "the throne is established."

Proverbs 14:34; 16:12. "The work of righteousness shall be peace;" and the effect, "quietness and assurance forever." Isaiah 32:17. He who obeys the divine law will most truly respect and obey the laws of his country.”

Since France made war upon God's two witnesses, they have been honored as never before. In 1804 the British and Foreign Bible Society was organized. This was followed by similar organizations, with numerous branches, upon the continent of Europe. In 1816 the American Bible Society was founded. When the British Society was formed, the Bible had been printed and circulated in fifty tongues. It has since been translated into many hundreds of languages and dialects. (See Appendix.) {GC 287.2}

For the fifty years preceding 1792, little attention was given to the work of foreign missions. No new societies were formed, and there were but few churches that made any effort for the spread of Christianity in heathen lands. But toward the close of the eighteenth century a great change took place. Men became dissatisfied with the results of rationalism and realized the necessity of divine revelation and experimental religion. From this time the work of foreign missions attained an unprecedented growth. (See Appendix.) {GC 287.3}

The improvements in printing have given an impetus to the work of circulating the Bible. The increased facilities for communication between different countries, the breaking down of ancient barriers of prejudice and national exclusiveness, and the loss of secular power by the pontiff of Rome have opened the way for the entrance of the word of God. For some years the Bible has been sold without restraint in the streets of Rome, and it has now been carried to every part of the habitable globe.

This was written before 1888.

It was not a national policy in the U.S. to teach children that the bible is a myth, thereby destroying any hope of them cultivating Christian values, until 1960 when it was decided that public schools should teach evolution, like communist Russia. Shortly after this, the Ten Commandments where banned, and public prayer was prohibited. Russia beat the U.S. in the space race, so it was assumed their system of education was superior and worthy of imitation. Since then SAT scores have plummeted, teen pregnancy has gone up, there has been a dramatic increase in children carrying guns to school and shooting their teachers and fellow students. It’s arguable that science could be taught just fine without telling the children they are just animals.

A notable atheist revolutionary and a huge fan of Evolution is Adolf Hitler, who is quoted as saying: “Let me control the textbooks and I will control the state..” He also said: "I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that ever existed." _{cited in Twentieth Century in Crisis: Foundations of Totalitarianism by Larry Azar}

Tragically there are certain "damnable heresies .. by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of" (2 Peter 2:1–3)
The most prominent of these must be the doctrine of how God will torture people for millions of years, and then torture them some more, and then keep torturing them for billions of years, and in fact will never stop torturing them, and they will never get used to it, but they will continue living through it, suffering, because they have an “immortal soul” which God is unable to destroy.

I could quote more than 100 verses that say plainly that the wicked are ultimatly destroyed after they are punished according to the evil they did. "the soul that sins, it shall die", "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)

There are no such phrases in the bible as “immortal soul”, “spend eternity in hell”, and “eternal torment”. I will make a good article just on this topic as soon as I get time. This comment has already grown long enough.

We see four different catastrophes in Matthew 24.

1. The flood of Noah
2. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by fire from heaven.
3. The destruction of Jerusalem was predicted and it happened in 70 A.D.
4. The second coming of Christ.

I have to find a way to justify God for destroying large numbers of people, otherwise I would take the side of the accuser. I personally believe the lives of the righteous where, in some cases, in jeopardy. That is to day: If God didn’t destroy the wicked in the flood, they would have eventually seduced or destroyed all of God’s faithful. Then what would be the point of the world existing if no one would ever qualify for eternal life? And how would the Messiah be born, as prophesied in Genesis 3:15:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel .

After this God reduced the lifespan of mankind from 900+ to about ~120 years.

And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. (Genesis 6:3)

This verse had duel meaning, for Noah also preached while he slowly worked on the ark for 120 years. That’s how much warning they had. Not only did the whole world know of the reform Noah was preaching, but they had plenty of time.

In each of these four destructions, the people had plenty of time and warning to repent and turn to God. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? (Ezekiel 18:23)

And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:5)

The reason they should have believed was based on Noah’s righteousness, defined by God’s holy law. This was all the evidence they needed that he was not making stuff up, but was speaking on behalf of God Himself. God was justified in destroying them even if He didn’t give them scientific evidence that He had the power and willingness to do so.

And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly;
And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
(For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds); (2 Peter 2:6–8)

Lot set a good example of hospitality, inviting strangers in. He didn’t know those where angels. This is the incident referred to in this verse: “Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.” (Hebrews 13:2).
Seeing how the wicked in Sodom despised the righteous example of Lot, who can say God is unjust for destroying those cities?

The disciples of Chris preached God’s righteousness and “turned the world upside down”, (Acts 17:6), with their zealous evangelism. There was no one that didn’t have a chance to turn from their sins and embrace the new covenant: “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Jeremiah 31:33
Back then they didn’t have so many apostates teaching perverse things like that Jesus changed the 10 Commandments. The only real issue was accepting Jesus as the Messiah, based on His example and an accurate interpretation of the prophecies.
The disciples of Christ in Jerusalem, those that took His word deadly serious, did make it out alive. “Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house” Matthew 24:15–18
You can be sure there where some which wavered a bit and did try to get stuff out of their house, and they died so the word of the Lord wouldn’t fall to the ground. How can God save people that won’t obey a simple command? “Remember Lot’s wife”, (Luke 17:32). What about Lot’s wife? The angel told her to not look back but she did anyway and was killed, (Genesis 000).

The best references to these three events I have found are in Patriarchs and Prophets and The Great Controversy by E.G.White:
Chapter 7; The Flood
Chapter 8; After the Flood
Chapter 14; Destruction of Sodom
The Great Controversy, Chapter 1; The Destruction of Jerusalem
_{Radio personality and syndicated columnist Paul Harvey, in his noontime ABC radiobroadcast of September 27, 1997, reported regarding Ellen White: "Her writings have been translated into 148 languages. More than Marx or Tolstoi, more than Agatha Cristhie, more than William Shakespeare. Only now is the world coming to appreciate her recommended prescription for optimum spiritual and physical health. "Ellen White! You don't know her? Get to know her.".}

The ever popular Left Behind series says that because the Lord “comes as a thief”, there will be a secret rapture and everyone will be alive after the Second Coming to have another chance. Boy, a lot of people like that idea. They just eat it up. Those book and movies sell like hotcakes.
What does the bible say about the thief idea?
1 Thessalonians 5:2–4
5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

2 Peter 3:10–14
3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
3:11 [Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness,
3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

Great motivation to be “without spot, and blameless”

1 John 3:2–3
3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3:3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

The righteous are not saved from the Second Coming by getting in a boat or leaving a city, but by receiving the Seal of God.

• Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. (Revelation 7:3)
• And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

(Revelation 9:4)

• Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. (Revelation 3:12)

_{A mark saving the righteous from destruction can also be found in Ezekiel 9.}

If you’re a computer programmer, you know programs are not just wished into existence, but take a lot of work to develop. The technology of creating organisms and the systems that sustain life on this earth, and likely other worlds, probably weren’t developed in 6 literal days either, but I believe the creation of life on a planet like this one would be better compared to installing software on a new computer, rather than writing it. Let me demonstrate from the bible.

Albeit, I do believe this world is special, and I’ll explain why later.

Some creationists will vehemently argue that the earth itself is only 6000 years old, but the bible really doesn’t tell us how old the earth itself is, but before the acts of creation began the stage is set with an already existing earth covered with water:

• “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (Gen 1:2)

Each acts of creation are sandwiched between the statements: “And God said” and “And the evening and the morning were the nth day.” The first is the creation of light.

The first verse, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.", is a summary of the creation week. It does not describe an act of creation that happened before the week, for in the week we see these two terms defined: "heaven" and "earth".

• Gen 1:8 "And God called the firmament Heaven.."
• Gen 1:10 "And God called the dry land Earth.."

Gen 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

If the earth was here, we could assume the sun and moon and planets and stars where here also, and the work on the 4th day was to make many vital adjustments for the earths to sustain life. God made the Sun and Moon (and the stars also) rulers of the day and night. The bodies would be for signs and to keep seasons, days, and years whereas before they where in disarray and also they could not be seen through the atmosphere because it had a thick, dark layer of stuff, like we see on Venus. Of course God didn’t put the lights literally “in” the firmament, but they are there in the sense that we see them there. Like you would say: “Who’s this man in the picture?” There’s not literally a man in the picture, but everyone knows what you mean.

So considering the bible doesn’t tell us when the earth and the rest of the universe was created, it's possible that fossil bones could be only ~5000 years old and be full of minerals which are millions of years old. The mineralization process can be recreated in mineral rich water and give you a fossil in 2 weeks. There have been fresh dinosaur bones dug up in some places, and some large fossilized Tyrannosaurus bones have been broken open to reveal fresh, stretchy blood and marrow. _{I do not advocate the evangelical’s tragic immortal soul doctrine. (see helltruth.com)}

Then there’s the gap theory, which I don’t personally adhere to, but at least it doesn’t blaspheme Moses and the prophets.

It is thought that there was once a shield of water in the upper atmosphere. Some think this shielded the earth from harmful x-rays and UV rays, and increased the air pressure which gave an atmosphere richer in oxygen. The two firmaments seem to suggest there was once a layer of water in the atmosphere. Some have suggested that this reflected the rays of the sun in such a way as to distribute heat around the world so there would be no extremes in heat or cold. It’s also possible the water shield protected the earth from harmful UV rays and X-rays and increased the air pressure giving a more oxygen rich atmosphere.

There where many other things that where not the same then as they are now and Christians remind themselves of the promises of God to recreate the earth as it was before sin. _{disclaimer: not complete lists}

Before sin:

1. Man had no death in him but would continue living forever as long as he had access to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22)
2. Man ate no leafy or root vegetable, but only seeds and fruits which include things categorized as nuts, fruits, grains, and legumes. (Genesis 1:29–30)
3. The animals didn’t eat each other, but primarily grass and herbs like cows, sheep, horses, etc still do today. (verse 30)
4. Man didn’t need the challenges of the thorns and thistles and the exercise. (Genesis 3:18–19)
5. It was not necessary to till the earth. (Genesis 2:5)
6. Man had didn’t need to pray or sacrifice, but where just friends with God. (Genesis 4:3,26)
7. I personally believe they didn’t cook, but ate things the way they came off the plant. Grains where probably like sweet corn which can be eaten raw until it turns starchy. Starchiness is to preserve seeds for winter.

Before the flood:

1. It didn’t rain, but the ground was watered by a mist that rose at night. (Genesis 2:5)
2. Men lived 900+ years. (Genesis 5)
3. Man had not yet been given permission to eat the flesh of animals. (Genesis 9:2,3)
4. The animals may have gotten to the point they where not afraid of mankind. (verse 2)
5. There where large amounts of water under the earth and above the earth in the atmosphere. (2 Peter 3:5)

Rush4hire 20:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the tip concerning the images. I wasn’t sure which license type to use. Also I didn’t mean to make that last comment so long. I really took great pains trying to trim it up.

Maybe I misunderstood the arguments. It seemed like you where saying there is too much evidence piled against the claims of Genesis 1–11 for anyone who is not unlearned to take them literally. Tell me if I’m wrong. Is this not what you’ve been raving about? This is a recent quote from you: “the literalism on the early part of Genesis ..as it's perfectly justifiable as a religious belief absent knowledge of natural history. It's merely wrong”

But first off, what do you call “natural history”? History of nature? The word “history” basically means “knowledge or record of past events”. Are you among the brainwashed masses who define the speculations of large groups of atheist scientists as history? The only history of this world is in the bible. There’s no other record that goes back farther than 6000 years. If that's not the case, tell me how you define "natural history".

To reiterate my case, in my first post I pointed out how Jesus and all the disciples seemed to take Genesis 1-11 literally, and demonstrated how easy it is for large groups of people to develop a strong, mutual desire to disprove the bible.
That approach didn’t hit off too well, for you said I was attacking a straw man.
In my last post, started by stating that it’s easy to refute man-made theories that are developed independent of, and in opposition to, the Bible, but that no matter how much evidence you have people would still not believe, “even if one where raised from the dead”. Can you refute this argument, or will you just cast it off as a straw-man? Is it not important to start by pointing out this fact?
Then I began to refute the arguments against the practicality of taking the Genesis account of the Flood and Creation seriously, first arguing that the Bible is scientific, and there’s no need to separate science from the bible, and then giving evidence supporting the idea that it was in fact more viable to use the flood and creation account to explain observations in geology and nature, and that some of modern speculations are ridiculous, but as I said, it’s the best mankind can do independent from and in contradiction to, the inspiration of God.
Then in the topic, The Rise of Atheism, I discussed the prophecy about atheism, because it needs to be demonstrated that this huge beast that is at war against the bible is not something that “got one over” on God.
Then I pointed out how, when the church misrepresents God, people are more prone toward atheism, and I made a plane quote from Peter to support that idea.
Then I went back to supporting the literal flood interpretation, pointing out that there are three other similar judgments, in the same chapter with the mentioning of the Great Flood in Matthew 24.
Then I finished up by answering your question about the second day of the creation account.

I don’t see how these are just random ideas. This dissertation makes my arguments pretty plain. And here’s another humble attempt at a summarization: Belief in the bible is viable, even when explaining observations in geology and nature. Beware of those who represent the bible as unscientific, for they may have an agenda.

1 Timothy 6:20–21
6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

Science independent of, and contrary to, the bible is defined, by the bible, as false science. Who are you going to believe? The prophets and apostles or the atheists? You can't be in agreement with both.

2 Peter 3:4–7
3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

This quote demonstrates how men can become very confident that the way things are is the way things have always been, and that people are ignorant because they want to be ignorant, (willingly are ignorant), not because God hasn't given enough evidence. I believe these quotes also, are prophecies against the rise of Atheistic Evolution.

No, I just took your advice about the tag. I wasn't paying enough attention to realize what the tag meant. lol.. It's a shame, as they where really good pics. I have submitted a request to the web site to give explicit permission on some page. I don't understand about the logo though. It was a logo and came form a link-to-us page.

You must clarify this statement:

"Early scientists took Genesis as a given and made every effort to fit their observations into that framework. As the body of observations grew, this became more and more difficult. They were eventually forced for the sake of intellectual integrity to abandon that approach. This happened very slowly, with great reluctance, over the course of several centuries. It was abandoned not out of hostility to God, but from the evidence of their own eyes."

I can respect this point of view, but what do you mean by "body of observations" and "the evidence of their own eyes"?

How can you look at layers of sediment deposits and say: "well we'd like to believe the bible, but it's impossible, as this clearly shows life on this earth existed longer than the Genesis account tells us." These observations prove the whole earth was covered with water! That's how sediments settle! If each layer was deposited slowly over millions of years, there would be erosion marks between the layers, and you wouldn't find whole petrified trees sticking strait up through several layers.

And what artifacts are assumed to predate Adam?

I never implied Adam started writing the bible, but no doubt he gave his testimony to his sons, and they to their sons. It's easy to assume they had no need of the written word, but these teachings where faithfully and accurately passed down from generation to generation, until Moses compiled the accounts all together. Moses didn't see this stuff in vision, but what he wrote which predated him, he got through his fathers, which got the data from their fathers up to Adam. Not a jot or tittle was lost. That data was in words, which really isn't much data. If that's what you believe, then I agree. But the account dates back roughly 6000 years.

I have seen people questioning why the flood account is written like poetry. I believe that's because it wasn't always written, but it probably sung. It's easier to read in poetry form. Just because it's poetry it's no reason to assume it was made up.

Summary: If life had existed before Adam, then wouldn’t God have told us. Has mankind ever been too dim to understand the theories that atheists have invented? Was the truth too complicated for Adam to understand? Was mankind perfect when he was created, or was gradually improved over countless generations through natural selection?

My final statement: No one is going to stand before God in the judgment and claim that His Word was not clear enough for them to understand, or was not available to them, or that it went against scientific observation. Are there more important issues for men to settle? Everyone dies, and everyone will face the judgment, and everyone will be judged by Jesus, whether they believe in Him or not. How people are to be judged is not up for vote. “For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son” (John 5:22) “..the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” (John 12:48)

If you don't wish to respond any more, it's ok. I will understand.

There's an individual (who, I should note, abstains from signing comments) who has become rather irked that I've removed his edits made to the article several times (in accordance with WP:OR and WP:UNDUE).

He's added several responses to older discussion, and apparently prefers to present his tenuous theories as arguments (for instance, he implies that as his mother was a Lutheran who denied the co-equality of the prosopa of the Trinity, then it is reasonable to assume that a large amount, if not a majority, of Christians also doubt the co-equality).

His edits to the article itself are very OR and seem completely ignorant of the theological elements of the incarnation- specifically, the 'lowering'(or humbling) of the Son. Therefore, not only are his arguments giving undue weight to a minority opinion, without even citing sources to begin with for such a 'view'- but indeed, his argument is easily refuted. Should everyone begin to cite verses they don't understand and place them into the article? --C.Logan 20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I accidently missed signing my articles, sorry. You deleted my work within minutes of me posting it before I could finish with improvements. (I save my work every once in a while so I don't lose it with a bad keystroke) I followed the same format as the existing info, copying it and then editing with other scriptures to try to give a NPOV to the article. I have added more info the end of the talk page, I am willing to go to mediation if we can't agree on a way to have a NPOV for anyone who searches for the word "trinity" and reads only part of an article. I don't think two different articles, each with an obvious bias and one hard to find from the other fits the wikipedia policy of articles having a NPOV.David edmonton 00:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

if my position is so easy to refute, then why don't you correct the wikipedia article John 1:1 that existed long before me, or explain how the scriptures I cite are inferior to the ones cited before?

You call it "your position", which I'm afraid gives your game away. We do not conduct debates in the article pages. That's not what an encyclopedia is for. If that's what you want to do, I suggest Usenet.

Your assertion that Nontrinitarianism is hard to find is simply false. There's a section in the article "Nontrinitarianism", and the article is prominently linked to right at the beginning of it. That's the usual way to point readers to more content, and is what's expected. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was hard to find for me in skimming parts of the article. I do not think a section on gospel of John which only includes claimed pro-trinitarian scriptures is NPOV, it seems to me like supression of evidence, not NPOV. Just like in a discussion of Tolkien regarding whether the Nazgul still had their rings or Sauron did, ALL relavent quotes should be including, even the ones that go against the opinion of the essay. Directly invited by the other person who deleted all my additions to that article, I don't think you can claim unbias. If you are not willing to allow all relevant quotes to the trinity from the gospel of John rather than just the pro-trinity ones (we can split all scriptures into separate article), I suggest formal mediation. As well, please refrain in future from deleting any mediation_cabel (informal) request unless you came there as a cabel/unbiased mediator. Sometimes it is good to see the perspective of someone who does not have an opinion on a subject beforehand.David edmonton 00:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This isn't an essay, and that's where you're going wrong. It's an article. An essay attempts to prove a thesis; an article merely presents information. Does it present all information? No, it presents the information relevant to the subject at hand. The article is about the Trinity, not doctrines that deny the Trinity. There's a separate article for that, which contains absolutely nothing "pro-Trinity" that I could find. Certainly it contains no "Trinitarianism" section as the Trinity article does for nontrinitarianism. Again, you're simply not telling the truth when you say you want "balance" because you're not agitating for similar balance in Nontrinitarianism. You simply want your own POV pushed where it is not presently.

Your contention that you were unable to find a major section of the article listed in the table of contents on a "quick skim" is disingenuous in the extreme. Please don't insult my intelligence. Either you're making this up, or you didn't find it because you didn't want to find it, neither of which is a fault in the article.

I will delete any mediation template where the person who placed it has not troubled himself to list the article correctly, as you did not the last time. Learn what you are doing before you start this kind of disruptive behavior. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your coming to my support. I'm still confused why I was a target of an admin, but whatever. However, even though I appreciated your support, you probably shouldn't have said anything about getting off a high horse--that probably was a bit too much. But I still laughed.  :) Orangemarlin 03:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why was my edit on Morgoth's names reverted? It was a cleanup of both un-Wikipedia information (roots from Etymologies) and mixing internal and external history of JRRT's writings. Plus some clarification. In case you only wanted to revert that awful edit about Morgoth in films, I will reinstall mine. Surendil 12:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I planned to wait around for feedback on sumo tourny boxes for individual rikishi, because I knew there was a good chance they wouldn't survive in that form. But, I couldn't stop myself and I put one up for Akebono, Takanohana and Musashimaru. Also, do you know where tournament records for rikishi (also sansho etc) are archived on the web? I couldn't find such detailed information to put in those empty boxes.Malnova 06:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please remember to sign up for the Sumo Wikiproject! Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, number 1.116.XinJeisan 17:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your basic NPOV edits and support in many contentious articles. I know you are Christian, and I've read what you posted on my page a few times--I think you have a good head on your shoulders, so I may not completely agree with all of your edits, I do know you are fair and balanced as much as possible. Anyways, thanks for showing up occasionally on these articles, and I hope to see you around more. Orangemarlin 06:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

This edit is not only NOT Flood geology, it's no geology I've ever read in my life. It sounds like some original research to me! Good catch there. Orangemarlin 05:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here is the code I found on the pages, but I have the same crash when I try to re create them, so I assume there is a problem with your syntax :

User:Csernica/Sandbox/Sumo/Basho

{{#if:{{{1|}}}|<!-- -->{{#ifeq:{{#uc:{{{1}}}}}|JURYO|bgcolor="#BBBBBB"{{!}}(Juryo)|<!-- -->{{#ifeq:{{#uc:{{{1}}}}}|INJURED|{{!}}Sat out due to injury|<!-- -->{{#ifeq:{{#uc:{{{1}}}}}|EMPTY|!x|<!-- --><span style="text-weight:bold;"><!-- -->{{!}}{{../Sumo rank{{!}}{{{1}}}{{!}}{{{2}}}{{!}}{{{3}}}</span><br /><!-- -->{{#ifeq:{{#uc:{{{5}}}}}|Y|<span style="text-weight:bold;color:DarkGreen;">{{{4}}}</span>}}|<!-- -->{{{4}}}}}<br /><!-- -->{{../Sumo basho awards{{!}}{{{6}}}{{!}}{{{7}}}{{!}}{{{8}}}{{!}}{{{9}}}{{!}}{{{10}}}<!-- -->{{!}}{{{11}}}{{!}}{{{12}}}{{!}}{{{13}}}{{!}}{{14}}}}}<!-- -->}}}}}}|!x}}

User:Csernica/Sandbox/Sumo/Sumo basho award

{{#if:{{{1|}}}|<span style="background-color:black; font-size:80%; font-weight:bold;">}}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{../Sansho|{{{1}}}}}}}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{../Sansho|{{{2}}}}}}}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{../Sansho|{{{3}}}}}}}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{4|}}}|{{../Sansho|{{{4}}}}}}}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{5|}}}|{{../Sansho|{{{5}}}}}}}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{6|}}}|{{../Sansho|{{{6}}}}}}}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{7|}}}|{{../Sansho|{{{7}}}}}}}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{8|}}}|{{../Sansho|{{{8}}}}}}}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{9|}}}|{{../Sansho|{{{9}}}}}}}<!-- -->{{#if:{{{1|}}}|</span>}}

I hope that helps. I'll try to see if I can find out why it makes the software crash like that. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

If that can help, you can access the edition mode even when the template is broken using these links: Sumo_basho_awards and Basho. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey no problem, we are here for that too ;) And I thought of the edit link after deleting the templates so we are even ^^ -- lucasbfr ^talk 06:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the compliments about uploading that video. It was a lot of hard work, getting a good shot and then encoding it correctly and what not. About the reading, I think I am correct? But sumo have weird names, so I suppose I could be wrong? Hmmm. Nesnad 10:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. It's Malnova. I just wanted to make it clear again that I think your tourney box is very attractive and concise and no doubt an improvement over my version. And I was happy to see that you agreed with and emulated most of my conventions. I have no reservations about using your template as "the template". However, as I said, I don't really want to reenter all the info., but would be very willing to use your template to make tourney boxes for other rikishi. If something does get moving on your version, there are a few things I would like to discuss about your template. But there is no point wasting time on the details of your template until/if interest develops. Cheers. Malnova 00:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

My issues with your template are small:

• I think the first mention of a rank should be wikilinked as opposed to having the explanation at the bottom, because this generally follows wiki conventions.
• More importantly I think Juryo should definitely be linked because some people may have no idea what it is, and in the first basho where a rikishi is demoted to Juryo it should read "demoted to Juryo" so it is clear what is happened for people who know less about sumo.
• The shade of gray you are using (and the shade I was using at first) colors over the box border colors. A different shade of gray (I just used bgcolor=gray)showed the border colors around it and looks more polished and easier to follow I think. Example:Takamisakari. Looking back at your template I see you are using two shades of gray maybe? Still I think the borders should be visible for all.
• I will admit East and West should not be left out. But I really think that Ozeki #3 West and the like is overboard. I originally put them in, but went through and took them back out. I think the information overkill would just confuse people. I don't the see necessity of of being so "komakai". Why are ozeki (for example) sometimes numbered and sometimes not? Should there be a wikilink to explain this? Seems the easiest just to avoid it.
• I think the icons for the sansho/kinboshi look too small (however, having said this, when I look at my tables in Mac/Safari my FOT icons look great, but they look skimpy in Explorer, whereas your icons appear the same in both browsers.)Malnova 07:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

More feedback:

• Not that it matters, but I was using template in the broad sense of the word: as a model or framework to be followed,and it also happens to be a table (and because I know next to nothing about how it all works). But I agree that when we are discussing nuts and bolts we should be more specific, so as not to confuse anyone, most especially myself.
• The way the template limits such things such as linking the first mention of a rank etc. seems a bit constraining, but I think it should be worth it to get a uniform look. How people feel about that can also be hashed out later. If Juryo can't be linked, I definitely think it should be mentioned linked at the bottom as the sansho etc. are.
• Two shades of gray is fine, and I think you are right about Juryo not having borders as a visual cue.
• If/when you can, tell me what you come up with about the "ranking" numbers of sanyaku.
• Yes, a little larger size for the sansho/kinboshi would be better I think.
• I noticed one more thing that I believe another editor, XinJeisan also mentioned. I don't agree with the words Aki, Natsu, Nagoya basho etc. being used. First of all, the sumo kyokai uses the months names for them (in both Japanese and English), the seasonal/locational is (at least now, I don't know about in the past) informal. Japanese wikipedia articles also use the month designation. The use of the informal titles might be used in sumo fandom, but I think that using the formal terms is going to be less confusing for people who know very little about sumo. These articles shouldn't just be for stated fans of sumo, and anyone somewhat knowledgeable about sumo would know that the March tournament = Haru basho etc. anyway.
• While I'm on this tack; does using the template make it harder to link the venue for each tournament as XinJeisan wants to do? If it's possible I think it's a nice addition, but I would prefer that these links had proper articles before we did this. Malnova 01:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Continuing...

• I do not agree that Juryo is trivial. If there is no link for Juryo, then the word itself should not even be used: it should instead read something like "dropped to lower division". If it is not linked than why should any other word be?
• Always listing a number might be a viable alternative to only numbering sanyaku in some tournaments. And I agree that it would probably be better to reverse the E/W distinction with the number, because this is how it is handled in Japanese and it just looks less distracting that way. I thought of this after I had already put up a number of tables, and didn't want to go back and change all of them.
• Indeed, sports sites, newspapers etc. often use the season/venue designations, but this is still not the formal usage.　I don't know how your Japanese is, but here is an explanation from the Japanese wikipedia ja:本場所#本場所の名称. I think that the alternative of swapping the positions of the titles is the best, if you want to use the secondary titles.
• I don't feel strongly about linking the venues one way or the other.

Just saw the revised table. It looks great. Let's get a wider audience for it maybe?Malnova 08:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I just tried out your template. After some trial and error, I think I got it right. I may be making it harder than it is, I don't know. If you have time, check Kakuryu. He is very new, so has not been demoted or given any sansho, so it is an incomplete test for me.

By the way, I was worried that my jumping the gun and making so many tables ahead of time would cause consistency problems, but the end look of the tables doesn't differ enough that the casual visitor will feel any incongruousness between old and new versions of the tables before (or if) all the old tables are replaced. Malnova 04:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey again. I tried to put up a tourney table for Tochiozan using your template, and though I followed the same system as I did for Kakuryu it doesn't come out right. I checked and double checked. I have one guess that maybe the template has trouble handling a wrestler who has not had been in Makuuchi tournaments in at least two years (?). Or it could be I am just not good at this stuff... Malnova 01:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's up Tochiozan, but there could be additional problems cuz I was in a hurry. I have an appointment in a few minutes. Malnova 01:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey again, did you update the tourney template to include sources? If you did, I think we need to go back and update the tables added recently so they have a source. Malnova 00:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

From http://www.john-howe.com/forum/smf/index.php?topic=1910.0 - the man speaks:

To put it in a nutshell, there are four conditions for use of any of my imagery on a web site (not including of course photos by other persons; in that case their permission must be requested).

1. That the use be strictly non-commercial.
2. That the work be properly credited.
3. That a clear link to www.john-howe.com be provided.
4. Last but not least, that the use of the image be in accordance with the image itself. This is perhaps hard to make clear, but I would refuse, for example, use of one of my pictures to promote ideas, concepts or undertakings with which I disagree, or for which the image's prime purpose is only to attract attention to something entirely different.

Obviously, I can neither control nor actually stop anyone from using what imagery of mine they decide to use on a site, but as I am generally dealing with people who appreciate the illustrations, I have run into few problems. (Most of the more amusing ones have been honest enough site owners who were "sold" my imagery by someone less scrupulous, rather like the Brooklyn Bridge...)

What tag should one use if one uses his images then, if it's even acceptable? (Cross-posted to Wikiproject Middle-earth.) Uthanc 00:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Did you mean to write sumoforum.net or sumoforum.com sumoforum.com doesn't look very good, while the .net looks more like what you were talking about.XinJeisan 09:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

on the Trinity page, under references= Science and Health there is a list of verbage attached. How do I either edit it or have some dialogue with the person who attached the dialogue? I'm in Guatemala and my name won't appear. Simplywater

The second ref tag needs to be preceded with a slash, like so: </ref> . You used two <ref> tags, which doesn't quite do the trick. It would be better to give the particular section of the book where the quotation is found, rather than citing the book as a whole.

Your name not appearing has nothing to do with you being in Guatemala, but because you're not logged in. Unless your country filters Wikipedia for some reason (and I haven't heard it does) there's nothing preventing you from creating an account on the English-language Wikipedia. Once you do that, you can sign your post with four tildes (~~~~) and your username and a timestamp will be added automatically whenever you're logged in. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. I'm contacting you because you have experience in dealing with our non-free content policy as it pertains to images. A so-far unresolved issue deals with "crowning moments" for beauty pageant contestants. This specific issue is heated because of previous disputes between the aptly named User:PageantUpdater and the obscurely named User:Abu badali, but the same issue could apply to many other classes of images as well. All parties have made their cases adequately, but consensus is still elusive, so the issue remains open long after other problems have been resolved. Could you go to Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_18#Image:MissUSA2007Crowned.jpg and give your opinion? It would really help us to finish this issue and move on. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply
(This message was copied to several other image-wonks at the same time.)

Why did you remove my photo?

--Mactographer 09:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I accidentally bumped the return key while typing my edit comment. I removed it because an image in that location with a navbar right opposite made for an ugly layout; by occupying the lead position with a large image of a Catholic altar it violated WP:NPOV; it provided no information because there was no caption explaining to the reader what it was; and even if there was a caption no useful information would be conveyed because it did not actually show the Eucharistic elements "being used" as the description page claims. It furthermore does not show a typically laid-out Catholic altar since it was evidently cropped from someone's wedding photo and it's set up specifically for a nuptial mass, which I suppose explains that one very weird candle. I furthermore had no idea what you intended to convey with your edit comment: what's an "Editorial photo"? TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Calling it an ugly layout, I might respectfully suggest, is your POV. I rather liked the layout myself. Suggesting that it violated WP:NPOV is a stretch. How does a photo violate a NPOV mandate? A photo is a photo. I didn't infuse it with a POV. Editorial images function in the same manner as this image does without caption. Mostly as a visual to illustrate a story or principle. Not all photos need captions. Certainly my edit was more descriptive than: (rv. TRhat') whatever that means, slip of the finger or not... However, I'll grant you since it was a from a wedding mass, and not a regular Sunday mass, the candles and such weren't laid out as might normally be done for the basic Eucharist. Tho NOTHING was cropped as you suggest. However, I did zoom in on the candles and chalice on the altar... but that was a full frame image and not a cropped image. If any of the candles were "weird" as you call them, you'd have to take that up with the priest. Seems to me that candles are candles. Don't catholics use them a lot in their ceremonies? Gads, one whole wall was practically ablaze with candles on another side of the room. But I will not reverse your edit since the photo represents a specific type of Eucharist particular to a wedding and not the general version of the ceremony. And likewise, the priest had the bread out of the photo at the time since it was in use.--Mactographer 18:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I just added a few paragraph headings to Hakuho and in the process I've messed up one of the images that you added-- it's disappeared! I've tried to correct it but I can't work out how to do so. Could you possibly put it back if you have time? Thanks and apologies. Pawnkingthree 16:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No need-- Malnova's fixed it. Pawnkingthree 20:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

When I look at your template tourney table in Safari at home, it's fine. But when I look at it on Explorer, the table hides half of the wrestler's name written above it. I don't actually remember this happening before; maybe putting the reference there has something to do with it? Malnova 08:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The IE I am using is for Windows XP. Malnova 23:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if a little padding at the bottom might be a simple fix. I might give it a try when I'm on XP again tomorrow. Malnova 10:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey. When I use your template, I get kind of bogged down when it just reads Basho six times in a row. Is it possible to change this part of the template to read the Hatsu Basho (or 1 Basho or Jan Basho), Haru Basho etc. in order instead of Basho 6 times? This would help me (and maybe others) to keep from losing our place when we are making tables. Would this screw up the template or is it an easy fix? If it screws things up too much don't worry about it. Thanks for listening, Malnova 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice. I'll try working it out. You are right of course about putting such questions/advice on the sumo project page. I'll paste my Q and your A on the project page. Thanks. Malnova 20:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions oyu indicated that fair use was not possible since a free image was obtainable. Did you meana free iamge exists somewhere or just that it might be possible to get the image free licenced by contacting the museum? I have emailed them now asking if they are willing to release it to the public domain or under licence. If they are not willing to do this, is a low-res version of the photo reasonable under fair use? I find this photo licensing a nightmare to behonest, I don't understand it! Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I saw your edit to Middle-earth, and I couldn't find out exactly what the Maryland town was about either, though I did find some scary references like some private school in Pennsylvania... I also found "Performance Surety Bond from Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland for the Middle Earth subdivision" here, and also found something in the Maryland State Archives Land Survey, for 1 June 1979, for "Middle Earth, Lot 4". My guess is that someone, or some company, brought a plot of land and tried to, or did, found a 'town' (more like a housing estate by the sound of it) called Middle Earth. I've seen many examples of street names based on Tolkien's characters. A good example is the housing estate in Holland. See this google maps link. Maybe this was something similar? Not suitable for the article though, but I thought you might like it. Carcharoth 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Somehow I think you missed this discussion to delete the sumo glossary. it went down in flames, so there is no worries about it and no need to argue it on the talk page. keep up the good work with the sumo! XinJeisan 09:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Kaio has been pulling henka or near-henka all basho. It gets on my nerves because he is such an artist that he doesn't need to do that. I don't know how long you've been following sumo, but Kaio is the most maddening rikishi to watch. He could have been yokozuna ages ago if it weren't for his own self-defeating attitude. When he absolutely has to win, he chokes from the pressure. But when nothing's on the line, he can beat the best of them. Remember his last yusho? His yusho was guaranteed on the 14th day, and on the 15th day Asashoryu was bound and determined to beat Kaio to show him that he still had his stuff...and Kaio put him down almost as an afterthought to moving on the Emperor's Cup ceremony. Even more maddening is I can see the kind of self defeatist attitude developing in Kotooshu. Just like Kaio, you can often see it in his face when he thinks he's going to get beaten; he's almost falling down before he makes contact. Or am I over-imagining? Malnova 00:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Don't know if you came upon this from my removal of the category from Second Coming, but I'm glad you took the step to bring this to CfD. It seems to be solely for promotional purposes, and the category text itself makes little sense. I'm guessing that the article of the same name may have a few problems as well, considering that it has also been edited almost entirely by user Apfaq.--C.Logan 05:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted your change in images. The new version is filled with digital artifacts (it is a jpg) and taking out the crease destroys the historical authenticity. I might be able to stomach a version saved as a png. -N 23:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you help with the tag in the second coming page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 13:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that!--GRM 19:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When I was updating wrestlers, I saw that Satoyama has a really short bio and should be in the "articles that need attention" column. I finished him and moved him to the correct section. This moves him into your assigned wrestlers, but he is already finished, you don't need to do him. Also, on another note, as PK3 said, there is a problem with the infobox rank, they now all read N/A. If I had a clue how to fix it, I'd give it a shot, but I don't.Malnova 23:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you are in the middle of updating, no hurry on this next question - I went to that sumo info site in French that you mentioned to PK3. It took a little patience (I know no French), but I managed to get an account. I did this because I wanted to see Iwakiyama's kettei-sen win (I was actually rooting for Kyokutenho, always liked him). How is the speed of the video for you? It is pretty choppy for me, but watchable. I doubt it is a bandwith problem as Tokyo is famous for it's lightning fast broadband connections comapared to other cities and countries. Do/Did you have the choppy problem as well? If not, did you do something to fix it? Thanks.

I discovered info sumo net through Csernica (thank you!) and was able to watch the live stream of last two days of the tournament! The first time I've ever seen sumo "live" as it were. Picture wasn't great but it was passable. Thought the final day was a little anticlimatic (shame Kotomitsuki lost) but still a great basho.Pawnkingthree 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, it depends on what you're watching. They have a "patch" to the live streaming feed from the NSK on at info-sumo, but you don't need info-sumo for that. You can connect to it directly from goo Sumo; and they also have a link to it at sumoforum.net. Just click the link: WMP should start up and connect on its own. The info-sumo version actually doesn't work well for me, perhaps because I use Firefox and it's shown there in some sort of plugin for an embedded WMP instance. The live stream is going to be choppy no matter what, since they can only pump out a stream to thousands of connected viewers so quickly even with Tokyo's bandwidth. You should be getting 72Kbps or something like that, and if you are, then that's as good as the picture is going to be.

What info-sumo is really valuable for is its video archives for any bouts you might want to review. These are smaller but of higher quality, as they're captured from the international satellite broadcast. For these they have both juryo and makuuchi. The stream will only show makuuchi -- usually. Sometimes they turn it on sooner, but that's not scheduled and can't be relied on. They always turn it on prior to the makuuchi dohyo-iri. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for your work on the infoboxes. I used your latest version in two new articles, on Nankairyu and Yamato, and it seems to have put the characters "tr>" at the beginning of the article. Have I overlooked something or is it something you could clear up by tweaking the template? Many thanks. Pawnkingthree 17:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Respectfully seeking your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Uthanc 03:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

The photo is my own creation, which I unconditionally release. I am sorry if I used the incorrect tag. Wmpearl 05:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I meant if he existed. Not if he wrote. Just tired of talk pages turning into places where people argure/debate/discuss their personal feelings and beliefs/disbelief (seem more vocal) on said topic not how to improve the article. Which is the point of the page. Not to prove in the existance of it. --Xiahou 03:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I took the liberty of including your reasoning in the upload page. Please delete if you do not agree :-)--Legionarius 03:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's not really necessary is all. I don't think anyone will question the PD status of an 1861 photograph. The court case I mentioned is explicitly called out in {{PD-art}}, so it's well-known by anyone who routinely patrols new images for copyvios. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well, I am still waiting for the answer from Harvard's curator; we talked by phone three weeks ago, but I still do not have an answer. That's why I wanted to leave a specially detailed explanation. (I agree that for WP it is unnecessary)--Legionarius 14:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Csernica, don't revert all that information because a couple things weren't sourced. The majority of it was. It was obviously an outrageous revert and your edit summary was uncivil. I hope you re-examine your borderline disrespectful behavior and I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way. I see up above on that talk page where someone else, who had a similar problem with you, wrote this to you: If you said that all parodies should be included then why are you deleting the entire list. That doesn't make a lot of sense? Tratare 06:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I already know about reverting and I am angry at you because I have reason to be. Instead of pointing out specific things you thought were unsourced, you went and reverted a bunch of stuff that WAS sourced. As I said, most of it was sourced. If you had a problem with one part of the controversy section, you can feel free to go to the discussion page and discuss why, but you don't revert every edit a person made because a couple of those edits that person made didn't look right to you. It doesn't make sense. For example, I think your revert was outrageous. Now, how would you like it if I went and revert everything you've reverted in the past all based on the fact that I felt that this one revert you made looked outrageous? Tratare 07:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you somewhat about some of it belonging on Judith Sheindlin. Particularly the controversy section. I didn't realize there was even a page. I assumed Judge Judy is Judith Sheindlin. Why there is a separate page, I have no idea. Regardless, you didn't remove that and place it on Judith Sheindlin if that's how you felt. You also didn't just erase that specific info. You just reverted everything, including the section about Judge Judy show and how she acts on her show which I thought was inappropriate Tratare 07:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

you say that your reason for not removing that to Judith Sheindlin was because you didn't feel like it. Exactly! Just like the reversion of a bunch of stuff, including sourced info, because you didn't feel like pointing out what you thought wasn't sourced on the discussion page so I could look at it or merely correcting that specific info, so instead just reverted every edit because you're lazy. You see, when you don't do things because you don't feel like it, like going to work everyday to put food in your stomach, it can actually make the problem worse like it is now.

And now that I think of it, your example of why Judge Judy and Judith Sheindlin are separate articles didn't even make sense. Your example was that it was like David Letterman and Late Show with David Letterman which it is not. You probably won't ever hear someone walk up to Letterman and say, "how goes it, Late Show with David Letterman" like you'd hear someone say, "how goes it Judge Judy?" You could have at least used Dr. Phil as your example. Even still, that page is known as Dr. Phil (TV series), not Dr. Phil. I think it makes plenty of sense to put information about Phil McGraw on a page that says Dr. Phil without TV series. That article is not called Judge Judy TV series. It's called Judge Judy and she's even known better by that name anyway. To be honest, that controversy info I removed to Judith Sheindlin could have stayed on that page.

Perhaps those aren't reliable sources and perhaps they are for that info. That was never the issue here as that still doesn't justify reverting the entire page Tratare 09:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. You wrote: Articles about people are titled by their correct names. The woman's name isn't "Judge Judy". That's the name of the TV show she stars in. That's not rocket science. (And yes, I am a rocket scientist.)

Articles about people are titled by their correct names? Visit The Undertaker page. Visit Hulk Hogan page.

2. You wrote: I also said that I am not responsible for your edits, but I would become so if I pasted it somewhere and I have no reason to take that responsibility. It's not mine. It's yours. Do your own work.

So let me get this straight. You avoided copying and pasting a small paragraph over to another page because you felt you would be responsible for something I should be doing, so instead you decided to revert the entire page, good edits included, all to avoid that responsibility. Wow! LMAO! That would mean you wouldn't correct anyone's work here at wikipedia because you felt you were responsible for something they should be doing since someone had to have edited it before you. That's my cue to give up on you. Goodbye Tratare 09:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that the Ted Nasmith images are replacable fair use - surely any illustrations of anything in the legendarium are derivative works? Will ^(talk) 02:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

From ArtsLaw.org:

"... The copyright provides the owner with a number of exclusive rights, including the right to make new versions of the original work, called derivative works."

"Such a derivative work would include the adding new artistic elements to a past work, i.e. putting the Mona Lisa in a halter top and pigtails while smoking a cigarette. This concept also protects an artist from having his/her original work reproduced in a different media by another artist, without the consent of the first artist."

In summary, then: yes. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, but I wasn't commenting on the rest, merely the issue of whether it's a derivative work, over which there appeared to be some disagreement. (Note: derivative works can be copyrightable if they're sufficiently different to the original.) --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 07:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to see your frustration on the Noah's Ark talk page, though I'm not surprised. Tendentious editors, as Taiwan boi certainly seems to be, will wear down anyone's patience eventually. Hope to see you back once the absurdity ends. Sxeptomaniac 20:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing my error. Don't worry, I don't recall ever making that mistake before! (I'll try to make other ones!) -- Ssilvers 00:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could you re-post your essay at Commons:Village pump? It would be much appreciated. (Hoping we can find good art and willing artists... I believe CBD suggested using comissioned art first - saw it somewhere.) Uthanc 14:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks also. He suggested it here: Talk:Frodo Baggins#New arrangement of images Uthanc 15:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

My thoughts on generic images and specific details. Uthanc 18:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Csernica. I saw that you have identified yourself as someone with excellent knowledge of template coding. I have been trying to create a template that automatically includes my signature in it. It is mostly the same as Template:Welcome. The one I am editing can be found at User:Dantheman531/Welcome. As you can see (if you choose to look), the template ends with {{CURRENTDATE}}. I was wondering if you knew a way so that CURRENTDATE would be subst'ed every time I use this template. Thanks. --דניאל - Dantheman531 20:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I actually think I figured it out. Thanks anyway, though. --דניאל - Dantheman531 21:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

... is now a Featured Article, thanks in large part to your contributions. Majoreditor 12:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

In case you missed it, I added something on this here. Carcharoth 16:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh. I wasn't aware of that; the edit section wasn't clear as to what the reason for those "span" tags was. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't talking about the blank at the bottom - I was talking about what appears to an editor in a page. Items such as <!--please edit this--> don't appear to a user reading the page, but would appear in the edit section upon the user's switching to the "Edit this page" area. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I guess I wasn't looking over there. I was editing that list section-by-section. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

To let you know that I moved your last comment at EA/R up above mine so that it is right below the comments to which it refers. I assumed that you just misplaced it slightly due to the lack of a signature and timestamp for the comment above mine. Regards, Adrian M. H. 00:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I don't know if you're an admin, but I seem to be having some trouble with Talk:Tratare, who is engaging in an edit war with me over the accompanying image of the Jeph Loeb article, without providing any rationale for why the pic he favors is a better image to accompany than article than mine. For my part, I have explained why I think it's a more appropriate image, in part because the pic he favors has been tagged for its unclear copyright status, and mine was one I took and released into the public domain myself. His only response was to revert the article and say, "I don't agree", without any elaboration. You can get an idea of the situation by looking at the Edit Summaries and the discussion I'm attempting to engage with him on his Talk Page. I have had images of mine removed from articles before, so I assure you, I have no problem with it is someone shows how the other image is better. Are you an admin? Thanks. Nightscream 18:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for tidying my efforts. Made me look competent! Ewen 09:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

thanks for the feedback, i'll keep posting Apotofgold 14:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading Image:Relics-return.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Weekly activity reports? It reminded me more of the Weekly World News! -- But|seriously|folks  22:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

It didn't seem like clear cut vandalism to me, so I assumed the good faith of that user and moved it to the appropriate place. If I was trying to move piles of garbage to other places, I would have also copied an anon's "bitch" from the header template also. Natalie 00:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

What I'm saying is that it wasn't so obviously a pile of garbage as to need, in my opinion, complete excision. Perhaps you should have directed the user to the correct place instead of just removing their complaint. They were obviously having an issue and, poor English or writing skill regardless, they may still want to try to resolve that issue. Simply erasing their question and moving on seems less than helpful. Natalie 12:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

My apologies for not being aware of your problems with that page, but I was already quite busy when I noticed that someone had accidently added a question to the template, instead of the page. I certainly didn't have time to go through the board's entire history and see that you have problems with irrelevant questions. Perhaps you could have explained this in the first place instead of complaining about my moving piles of garbage. Natalie 23:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, and thanks for your helpful responses to my question about using a photo of graffiti art. My apologies, but I'm still a bit unclear about what to do about this and was hoping you could clear it up. This is the first image (you can find it at Image:Phase2bubbler.gif) I've uploaded and though I read through some of the copyright and fair use instructions I was not really sure how to proceed. If I want to argue that it is fair use to use this image, and if I do not know who the copyright holder is (other than the fact that it is the person who took the picture) what kind of copyright tag do I need to apply to the image, and how do I explain my rationale for why we could use an unfree image? As of now the copyright status of the image is undetermined, so it will be deleted in a few days. If you could give me a hand with this I'd really appreciate it, or if you're too busy right now I'll try to find someone else more versed in these matters than I. Thanks!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much, I'll proceed as you have suggested.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to bother you with this one last time--normally I muddle my way through Wiki policy on my own but I find the image policies a bit daunting. I received an e-mail in reply from the author of the "How to read Graffiti" page who informed me that the original copyright holder is in fact PHASE 2 (real name Lonny Wood), the artist who created the subway graf piece. The photo (which Phase 2 apparently either took or at least has ownership over) was included in an Italian book called Style: Writing From The Underground which Phase 2 wrote (it was published by a European press and is apparently very difficult to find--only a few very expensive copies on Amazon).

Given this fact, does any of the advice you offered me here change or should I proceed as you described? Also, is the fact that I actually took the image from a third-party web site (not the book in which it was originally published) relevant or not? Finally, should the copyright holder be described by his more well known name (Phase 2, under which I assume he published the book) or his legal name, Lonny Wood? Again, my apologies for pestering you once more, and I really do appreciate your help.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Again, many thanks. I do not know the photo's publication history, and am therefore operating under the assumption that it's copyrighted to Phase 2. I've tagged the image with the appropriate licensing information and also added what is hopefully a detailed enough explanation of the copyright status and the fair-use rationale. Glad you were around to guide me through this!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this edit summary—it made me laugh out loud. Entirely true, cogently argued, and perfectly silly. -Phoenixrod 04:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

For your comment on my page helping me with fair use rationales. With you and ybbor I just might have gotten it. Millancad 03:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Please read Template:Non-free use rationale. It says that low resolution pictures are "no more than 300 pixels in width or height", so what I'm doing is uploading low resolution images in place of those that do not match low resolution criteria. Thanks. Daniil Maslyuk 14:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know what a rule of thumb is because I'm Russian, and English is me second language. The 300 pixels criteria is for raster images only, are SVG images raster? Daniil Maslyuk 00:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I got your point. In the future, I'll not be uploading lower resolution images if the existing versions are close to low resolution criteria. I still have no idea why you even mentioned SVG images while the low resolution rule applies to raster images only. Daniil Maslyuk 05:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

An anonymous user has made some significant changes to the Economic and Ontological Trinity section of the Trinity article. This is certainly on your watchlist, but I'd just like to bring up this fact, so that it may expedite your review of the information. In general, the presentation is agreeable, though much information was discarded from the previous version. Additionally, there are some sections where the user appears to be arguing a particular POV (e.g. the last paragraph), although this may be based more in the continuation of thought concerning the viewpoint of a denomination (for example, presenting the claims of a group by speaking them directly, rather than adding "They believe..."). In any case, it would seem that this addition should be checked for neutrality, and the information which was discarded should be assessed as well.--C.Logan 18:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I hate to bother you again, but I've become involved in a dispute/discussion with an editor who is adding information which appears irrelevant to the topic of Criticism of Christianity. I've explained why on the talk page, but he appears to be listing a simple history of Christianity, and is implying that the internal debates are indeed "criticisms" in and of themselves and therefore are appropriate for listing. I disagree, as in keeping in format with the article as it is, and to avoid original research, we should only list actual criticisms made by individuals or groups explicitly, not implicitly- the fact that a group had internal debates does not mean they "criticized" one another in the popular sense. I hope I'm being clear. In any case, he/she appears to be misreading sources (inexplicably altering the article to claim that Cerularius excommunicated Pope Leo's legates first, as opposed to being a response to their own excommunication of the Patriarch, even though the source noted the latter, and reverting my sourced addition of "orthodox" translating as "correct belief/praise"). If you can, lend some help in the matter. I know you're more familiar with Church history and theology than I may be, and I'll need assistance in making this user's contribution presentable (i.e. listing actual criticisms, which certainly exist; Martin Luther's claims being one example).--C.Logan 15:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Csernica,

The material you have readded to Religion is highly contentious and consensus seemed to be, months ago when it was kept out of the entry, to keep it out. Will you please join in discussion on the talk page about the merits of this information. Given its history I think we need to keep it out unless there is consensus to put it in. Thanks.PelleSmith 23:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply