History
I haven't archived my Talk. Instead, the links below point to the same page in various states in its history. The disadvantage of this is that it means that you won't be able to answer me on the linked page, without over-writing the current version (which probably wouldn't be your intention). Just create a new note on the current page, to continue old discussions. Look to the linked pages for reference. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **
- See the History of this page for archived Talk.
- [1] - Jehovah's Witnesses, sola scriptura, predestination + various
- [2] - sola scriptura and the hermeneutic of protestantism
- [3] - proposed article insert for fundamentalism
- [4] - Jesus Christ images, supernaturalism + various
- [5] - islamist ideology + various
- [6] - merger proposal, Faith, Shakers, etc.
- [7] - Mormonism and Christianity
- [8] - Human, Mythology and related pages, and many other notes of greetings, both of well-wishing and damnation.
Icon edit war
Hi Mark, I wonder if you could take a look at the Icon article. It's turned into a slow-moving edit war, but the most frustrating thing is that the anonymous editor(s) refuse to discuss anything on the Talk page. Do you have any suggestions for working towards a resolution in this case? Wesley 16:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
to: mark
to: mark
Please see my comment in the talk: Biblical scientific foreknowledge section. I could use your help.
Thanks,
ken 03:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
to: Mark, addendum
Mark, Guettarda spent a lot of time footnoting the Biblical scientific foreknowledge article. Rather than do more research and try to support his anti Biblical scientific foreknowledge arguments MickWest is now vandalizing the page. I don't think this is fair especially to Guettarda who did the more tedious and much appreciated footnoting work. If you could do something as a moderator I would appreciate it.
ken 17:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- Ken, "Vandalism" is not the appropriate word fow what is happening on that page. Guettarda has done a good job, I agree. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I have asked for assistance. Mickwest is breaking Wikipedia rules. He said critics compare Biblical scientific foreknowledge to the ancient astronaut theory. He never supported that. I can give other examples as well (lions cannot digest straw, off the cuff not substantiated remarks about the Lancet study. He also erases material arbitrarily to make the article skewed. He wants only the good mentioned in regards to ancient Egyptian medicine and not the bad. I am not that technical and do not mean to revert some of Guettarda's work. I realize you have other priorities other than Wikipedia. There are other things in life. However, I don't feel though that the admins are doing anything about Mickwest's breaking of the rules and it should not be coming down to this.
ken 18:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- I would be quite happy to explain any of my edits, to consider alternatives, and be subject to arbitration. No wanting to clutter your talk page Mark, but I wanted you to know I'm aware of Ken's concerns. Furthur discussion might be had on the relevant talk pages. MickWest 18:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- I honestly think that you are confusing a difference of opinion, with breaking the rules, Ken. Avoid reverts. Work patiently, and slowly. Assume good faith. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Mark, I added my two cents on the article talk page...hope it helps. Passions seem high. Keith 18:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
to: mark
I think you were right possibly about the good faith in regards to Lucavix despite his apparent vandalization of someone's userpage. However, MickWest has repeatedly shown bad faith. I can no longer assume good faith. Please look at the history of the Biblical scientific foreknowledge page before asking me to assume good faith again.
ken 20:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
TO: mark, addendum
I do recognize the benefits of diplomacy. However, when diplomacy failed and repeatedly failed in regards to MickWest I believed it was time to call a spade a spade in the edit notes and bring attention to the problem to the widest possible audience. That is why I made the post I did.
ken 20:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- Ken, it is not a matter of "diplomacy", but of policy. Do not use edit notes to call attention to your personal breakdown of trust; don't characterize people negatively, or call them vandals, especially in your edit notes. It is considered bullying, and it turns opinion against you. Don't try to justify it; it only makes things worse. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think I have been the bully although I have taken some recent rhetorical pops to a bully's nose. Specifically, I believe MickWest does not use the talk page but goes in with his atheist meat cleaver editing because he knows his edits are unjustified. I consider this vandalism at best. I did use the "edit blow horn" to see if I could stop the nonsense. I realize I have taken a tougher stand but I see the potential "trimming avalanche" to be a serious breach of Wikipedia policy. ken 00:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- Ken, please, I am trying to save you from falling into that weird netherworld where generally distrusted editors go. Do not use the edit comments to pop anyone on the nose. You have been completely correct, to ask him to support his edits on the talk page. I do not think that you are looking at things clearly enough, though, to call what he has done "vandalism". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
to: mkmconn
I may have figured out a way to avoid the meat cleaver nonsense in the future. The Bible does say to be shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves. I appreciate your help in your last comment. I will resist the blow horn approach. I would appreciate it if you could say in the talk page that MickWest has not used the talk page and used poor editing practices in relation to my material. I would appreciate it if you could get empathetic admins,Christians, and others to intervene.
By the way, check out my article at CreationWiki at: http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Scientific_foreknowledge
ken 01:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- The point is, Ken, that you requested that he stop making edits without discussion and now he has complied. His earlier reticence to discuss has been corrected. Please show him good faith in return, and seek a way to incorporate his concerns in your edits. Keith also has pointed out some of the weaknesses of the article.
- It is a healthy exercise. As I told you once on your talk page, using Wikipedia as a medium for learning how to enjoy people will prove profitable. Using the articles as a way to wage war on behalf of our perspective will lead to opposite results, both with regard to your battle for the faith, and also with regard to your enjoyment of this experiment. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
to: Mark
I have a problem with you making criticisms of me in the public talk page at talk: Biblical Scientific foreknowledge but not making criticisms of MickWest in the talkpage. It is not that I cannot take public criticism. I think this can be constructive. In the talk page I am going to admit an error in judgement shortly (the swami lion). However, why shouldn't MickWest be similarly held publically accountable. You know he has acted very inappropiately. He takes his meat cleaver to cut away the minority view in a minority view article. This is flagrently against policy. Before he did it without discussing which is doubly against policy. I gave a short paragraph of info both pro and con for Egyptian medicine from responsible sources that I believed obliterated a position I found very faulty. I gave both sides both pro and con. He only wanted to give one. Now if he chooses to discuss before taking his meat cleaver that is still against policy. Again, there in no limit to Wickipedia for a minority view in a minority view article. None whatsoever. Case closed.
Second, I do enjoy people. I also think rude and unreasonable people are character builders. Christians are supposed to pray for enemies. I don't hate MickWest. I would be lying though if I said my overall experience with him was enjoyable. It hasn't been. Rudeness is not enjoyable.
Lastly, you said, "Using the articles as a way to wage war on behalf of our perspective will lead to opposite results, both with regard to your battle for the faith, and also with regard to your enjoyment of this experiment."
I offered information that I believe is valid. I think there are ideas that are severely wrong and I see no reason not to offer valid information regarding them. You can characterize this as some rhetorical and resentful jihad if you want but I see nothing wrong with it. I know Irenaeus and Justin Martyr offered reasons to believe and offered criticisms of differing views via valid info.
ken 15:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- This is the problem, Ken. You asked for help in resolving a conflict. This is not formal arbitration - that is the only avenue for blocking individuals from editing an article. But I'm trying to warn you that if you go to formal arbitration, the results may greatly surprise you. I think that you are in greater danger of being blocked from editing that article, than MickWest is.
- So, I've tried to point out the things that you are doing that create tensions, and aggravate problems. You need to look much more critically at your sources, for one thing. For another, you continue to adopt conventions that are at least inconvenient, if not disruptive (you finally dropped the evil shadow, but this peculiar talkpage style of yours also must go). What is MickWest doing right now that makes him stand out for criticism?
- Wikipedia is all about dealing effectively with disagreement and disagreeable people. You said "Rudeness is not enjoyable." I specifically used the word "enjoy", for a reason. You must enjoy rude and abusive people, not "despite their sin", not going around their sinfulness but stepping right into it; or you and your work will not survive here. You must see through sin to the humanity, which sin cannot obliterate, and you must reach to the man through the fog of his sin. You cannot get lost in the fog. Follow me? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Talking softly
Good advice, that. Still, there was no reason that I even had to be involved in this dispute, and Ken's hard-headedness is wasting my time. I have a very narrow window of time here, since prolonged protection is very bad for the article. His attitude is starting to convince me that one well-placed block could solve the entire problem. . . I'd just rather not go that route.
The crux of the matter seems to rest, in my opinion, on ken's ability to seperate Wikipedia from reality. We're a tertiary reference, not the book of truth (from anyone's perspective). Still, as I said, good advice, and I'll try not to get too frustrated. All the best. Scimitar parley 16:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't know that you were a sysop. Good call on unprotecting the article- I hope I didn't bungle your mediating attempts too badly. --Scimitar parley 20:08, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
to: mark
correct. NPOV. I will fix notes
ken 23:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Please look at my comment on the BSF webpage re: the Egptian paragraph. I want to resolve this issue and get it done with.
ken 20:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
to mark:
Please read my new comment in the BSF article.
ken 20:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Correct NPOV. I will duly note that shortly.
Thanks,
Ken
to: Mark
I read your fundamentalism article insert. I thought it was eloquent.
I think from a historical perspective there has always been antipathy towards the Bible and Bible believers. The Romans and later suppression of the Bible in the Middle Ages. The conflict between Protestants and Catholics. Then came the Bible versus the Rationalist/Freethinkers/Bible critics. Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun.
Here is a essay which speaks about the Bible and world history. It is a semi famous essay:
ken 03:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- Thank you. Sometimes it's belief in the Bible that is opposed; sometimes it is just wrong-belief that is opposed (but heretics always console themselves that they are being persecuted for their courageous faith - just as Jesus said they would be). Whichever we may be, it's hard to be sure which you are. Have you seen my notes to myself on that subject? I suspect that you might not like it much, but you can find it at User:Mkmcconn/Creationist. After writing it, I decided that I would no longer engage in the battles between the Evolutionists and the Creation Science people. I faced the fact that there is no place in that debate for me. It's somewhat relevant to your BSF work. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Criticisms of Christianity KHM03 10:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- This should become a very popular page, I would think. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Apologetics and minority views
To: mark
If you go to the Christian apologetics area you can read more James Orr articles. Click on James Orr.
Secondly, I think there may soon be a lot more Christians at this site. I cannot go into the details yet but consider that it may happen.
Thirdly, I want to make more Christian apologetic material and I do not want to get bogged down in the Bible scientific foreknowledge area with needless disputes.
I think there is a misunderstanding on your part and I think it was due to my own lack of communication. I more clearly expresed Wikipedia policy and please read the last paragraph as it more clearly expresses matters.
Here is what I wrote:
Now here is what Wikipedia states about minority view articles:
None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.
Why does Wikipedia says this:
The Wikipedia people were astute enough people to recognize the foibles of men and that they would use brevity/conciseness complaints in order to exclude minority views from being full expressed. Therefore, they were quite clear that minority views can go into "great detail" in minority view articles and that there is "no size limit to Wikipedia". The minority view status of this article overrules any brevity/conciseness claims. In short, Wikipedia set up a system of checks and balances so the majority view would get more attention but at the time allowing very liberal rights to minority view articles with few restrictions.
ken 17:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- The spirit of the rule is that minority views should be given a full airing, which means that they will often be represented entirely out of proportion to the number of those who accept or endorse the view, or its standing as a scholarly perspective. It does not mean that articles should be as long as books, or that they should become a web-reference link resource for every pertinent article that you can find. Minority views can go into "great detail". That doesn't mean that the policy is being upheld only as the description of the minority view continues to grow toward infinity, or that the article cannot be improved by directing attention to a fuller treatment elsewhere, at the expense of some details in the immediate context. Wikipedia is not paper: "great detail" does not mean that those details need to be copied over and over, growing in parallel wherever they are copied. Concise and helpful summaries, that fit the flow of the article and enhance its legibility, but which point to fuller treatments elsewhere, are standard.
- Look around at what works, Ken. Conform to conventions. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Baphomet redux
Perhaps you'd be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Myth. HKT talk 17:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi back
Good to see good editors like you still around. Best regards, —B|Talk
BSF
The article is getting way out of hand, in my view. Good luck. Keith 22:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think Ken is being disrespectful to Mick...not just in terms of reverting most of Mick's edits, but by his tone in his edit summaries and on the talk page. Keith 22:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're too right. I hate to do it, because he still thinks that it's a matter of principle, but the zero tolerance policy has to be enforced; the personal attacks must stop. I'm probably too reluctant to be effective here. Maybe User:Slrubenstein would be the right person to go to, in the absence of User:Essjay, to decide whether a formal process should begin, to block him from editing for a while. Mick has enough now to make it happen yesterday. *sigh* 23:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- I left a message for User:Slrubenstein. KHM03 23:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
FestivalOfSouls
Do you think that there is anything that we can do about the FOS situation? JHCC (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Mostly, I think that what we need to do is just keep ourselves from letting him get under the skin, as I occasionally let him do. I think it's proving obvious that he has nothing to offer toward a neutral resolution of the issues he raised - he demands that people change their beliefs, or else their beliefs should be trampled. He persists in attacking people, thinking that this is how to attack the problem - because he doesn't see a problem, except as he sees people as the problem. I perceive intelligence there, but it's pinched off by prejudices.
- So, it may be that the proper path is to shift away from trying to work with him, and adopt the stance of protecting Wikipedia from a persistently abusive personality. But I am inclined to think that this should not be done before a consensus solidifies concerning the use of controversial categories. He's in the position of fillibustering, now; as he avoids the implications of a resolution that really does use Wikipedia-style neutrality, and collaboration, as the guide instead of his arbitrary standards of objectivity. It may be that, if it works as it appears it might, he might have a change of heart when he sees that no one has to change their opinions in order to make a "neutral" approach practical. If not, and his personal attacks persist, he should be blocked.
- He's got one of the best nicks on Wikipedia, though. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- By all means, keep him in prayer. That would be a very Christian response, don't ya think? Keith 11:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- I quite agree with both of you. I would suggest that we proceed with developing a "Christian narrative" category (appropriately subcategorized), without actually deleting the "Christian mythology" category. My suspicion is that "Christian narrative" will ultimately take the place of "Christian mythology" and may even provide a model for categorizing other religious narratives as well. Should this happen, especially if the neutrality of the "mythology" categorization continues to be challenged, "Christian mythology" will most likely die on the vine. In the mean time, we'll have done something positive with all this debate.
- Thank you both for you help with a contentious and sensitive issue. JHCC (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
More Christian mythology
There is a new proposal at Category_talk:Christian_mythology/Proposed_compromises#JHCC's_new_proposal. Please read and comment. JHCC (talk) 14:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
RfA
Mark, Please support my request for adminship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/GordonWattsDotCom
Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- If barnstars are any indication, you're qualified and I am not! I'll look at your RfA. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Fiddling with my comment
If by my "comment on the talk page", you mean the summary on Category talk:Christian mythology of what went where and why, be my guest. If there are any substantial changes, just add your signature to mine on the comment. JHCC (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Fiddling with your comment
You said in your last comment on Category talk:Christian mythology, "Leave us "narrative", and then make of "narrative" what the various opinions make of it: various categories of opinion about Christian narrative." Did you mean, "Leave us "narrative", and then make of "mythology" what the various opinions make of it, [etc.]"? That would make more sense. JHCC (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- I mean, "narrative" is what these stories are, without any opinions thrown in. Now, someone like Reddi might want to categorize what kind of narrative "Christian narrative" is. Let him categorize it according to his opinion - and it is an opinion - that all Christian narratives are part of the "Abrahamic" mythological tradition. Let them stop speaking as though their point of view (myth) were an issue of fact, and our vanilla description (narrative) is too uninformative. The opposite is the case. The category "mythology" does not inform at all. It tells you nothing about the story, but only about what people think about the story. It opinionizes in the most blatant manner.
- For example, the story of Christ and the fig tree is a Christian, New Testament narrative found in the Gospels concerning a miracle (Category:Gospel miracle narrative. All Gospel miracles, according to FofS, are myths. Fine; that's his subjective religious opinion, "based on the dictionary definition" (his infallible scripture). Then add to the Gospel miracle narrative category, that it is a subcategory of mythology (an opinion category). Do not add the category of "myth" to the article page ([[Jesus and the fig tree]]) as though it were a neutral fact comparable to "narrative": that would be, and has been, POV pushing. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Nicely put. You might want to give that example on the talk page, especially since "a Christian, New Testament narrative found in the Gospels concerning a miracle" is a marvelously neutral description. BTW, do you think that we should have a Category:Gospel miracle narrative as a subcat of Category:Gospel episodes? JHCC (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. We should create a fact-cat as a neutral replacement for any op-cat, if such a fact-cat is createable: and "Miracle myths of Jesus" is just the sort of op-cat that someone would want to create. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'd suggest Category:Christian miracle narrative, otherwise we would have to have separate subcats for miracle narratives in Acts, hagiography, histories, etc, etc. Anything categorized as a "miracle narrative" can also be categorized as Gospel episode, Christian literature, or whatever. JHCC (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- There is a difference between miracles of Scripture and miracle narratives found elsewhere, which should be accounted for. New Testament miracle narrative, Tanakh miracle narrative, Septuagint miracle narrative, Book of Mormon miracle narrative, etc. might be better — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Let's take this to the Category talk:Christian narrative page. JHCC (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- There is a difference between miracles of Scripture and miracle narratives found elsewhere, which should be accounted for. New Testament miracle narrative, Tanakh miracle narrative, Septuagint miracle narrative, Book of Mormon miracle narrative, etc. might be better — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'd suggest Category:Christian miracle narrative, otherwise we would have to have separate subcats for miracle narratives in Acts, hagiography, histories, etc, etc. Anything categorized as a "miracle narrative" can also be categorized as Gospel episode, Christian literature, or whatever. JHCC (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. We should create a fact-cat as a neutral replacement for any op-cat, if such a fact-cat is createable: and "Miracle myths of Jesus" is just the sort of op-cat that someone would want to create. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
BSF paragraph reverting
Hi Mark, there seems to be a bit of revert warring going on at Biblical scientific foreknowledge (2 rv from me, 1 from Pjacobi, 4 from ken/.50). I wonder if you could take a look if you have time. A sample: [9] MickWest 20:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Make that five reverts from ken. I don't want to be confrontational - but it seems a bit much. Maybe you could explain the 3RR to him, I don't think he will listen to me. MickWest 20:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
What was it that finally irked you on the BSF page? I got fed up and just walked away several days ago: I don't think the article can be saved, and it's a silly subject to begin with (in my view). What made you protect it? Keith 21:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- Revert wars just have to stop. I also quit watching the article, and don't want to be forced to revisit it (but will if I must). I felt, the recommendation to seek arbitration is overdue. Do you think I was hasty? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- I fully understand you both wanting to wash your hands of the article. It is a somewhat silly subject, but I believe it's possible to write about it sensibly, an attempt at this led to the current revert war. I think it is a minor sideshow to the whole Creation Science debate, but still one that comes up over and over on fringe internet sites. Providing context and history on Wikipedia will allow people to evaluate BSF on a stronger basis - regardless of what decision they come to. While I am a weak athiest, I strive for NPOV, and I'm willing to work with Ken on presenting a NPOV article. However, I feel like arbitration may be required, if only to clarify the "rules". I thank you for your input thus far, and hope you might at least pop in from time to time to see how us kids are doing.
- MickWest 21:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you want the page unprotected, please discuss this with Ken and get back to me if you agree that the revert war will not continue (until tomorrow, I suppose) . Please try to use reverts for vandalism only; and battle out your differences in a more collaborative way. Be more creative about trying to steer between the two opinions, please. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- And I suppose it needs to be said: "Vandalism" looks like this: Suxors fop overly. In contrast: revert wars look like this: rvv stop reverting this page! Admins stop vandal User:Blanketyblank braking Wikiruls no attribution!!!!!' — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you were hasty at all. Have you requested arbitration? KHM03 21:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- I want the two (or three) of them to decide if that really is the only way to move forward. Although I am
righta Calvinist, I am repulsed by legalistic approaches to resolving disputes. Although arbitration doesn't have to be "legalistic", a legalistic participant can force it to that. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)- It's really only two of us unfortunately. It's a sad affair. I take your points, and I'll try to engage Ken some more. MickWest 22:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I think you explained things well, but I'm not sure the few users we've been dealing with will care. The article might just be irretrievably lost, and we may have to wait months (if ever) before making it adequate and NPOV. A real shame. KHM03 23:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
User Categorization
You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Oregon page as living in or being associated with Oregon. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Oregon for instructions. Rmky87 06:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Kdbuffalo
Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kdbuffalo please. Dunc|☺ 13:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
to: mark
I know that Wikipedia's culture and Wikipedia's rules clash. The rules protect minority view articles but the Wikipedia culture does not. Also, the culture will allow you to give info that points to the Bible being historical as long as it doesn't get too close to Genesis chapter one.
Second, I realize you took a neutral position and did not go into who was right and who was wrong and merely stated you tried to resolve things.
Third, I think you should be aware that MickWest and Dunc behave one way in public view but intentionally harrass me behind your back. I suggest looking at Dunc's userpage periodically to make sure he is not harrassing others which it appears he is doing if you care about such things but given your current life demands maybe this is not a fitting priority. MickWest is more clever at it than Dunc who leaves tracks. MickWest sends mail to my userpage although I have told him to do all correspondence though talk pages. MickWest sends "help" messages which are not designed to help but to irritate. I explain this in the "gossip column" dunc started in which he makes false claims about me and my behavior (For example, I am not a Bible literalist as you know).
Lately, I have used satire to mock their behavior. I believe it is deserved. I am not "crying in my beer about them not changing" though. Most people do not change and this is a fact of life. I believe Wikipedia will do little to stop them nor can it short of locking my userpage or articles which I believe will not happen.
I think the best solution is to go anonymous again. I think this is especially true since I have requested a advocate and described his atheist bullyboy tactics.
Wikipedians are likely not going to help and I realize I made some mistakes too
I know you and others know the following:
1. I used a very large amount of excellent sources like medical/science journals, medical historians, etc. You even admitted this matter.
2. I clearly said I was not a Bible literalist.
3. I wanted to live in peace with each position presenting its views. Yet the anti-BSF people would not allow this to occur. The medical/science journal and other sources were constantly eliminated.
Here is the Wikipedia policy though:
"None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth." [10]
4. I know they realize that Duncharris is not telling the truth about my sources and he is not telling the truth about me being a Bible literalist yet they remain silent. I don't believe this is right.
Now given the article on Wikipedia creationism do I really believe Wikipedia is committed to their policy on minority view articles and thus my minority view article would be treated fairly? No, I do not. If they were committed to the minority view articles, the management would have done something about the creationism article a long time ago.
Now should I have broken the 3R policy the one time I believe I did this? No. Just because the other side breaks Wikipedia rules does not mean I should. The same goes for the "Admin Duncharris the bullyboy atheist" article in which I describe his harrassing messages to me and his harrassment of others.
Lastly, I do think I spent inordinate time trying to reason with the unreasonable. I think that time would have been better spent going though channels (although I don't think it would have worked) or doing other things.
128.205.191.88 14:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
addendum, I read your message and re: the "pirate" issue
Put yourself in my shoes. Would you want a series of harrassing messages and nobody publically condemning it?
You want me to go non-anonymous so I can be part of the Wikipedian community. Yet has the Wiki community done a lick to say Duncharris is spreading falsehoods about me? No, they have not. I don't think your silence was right especially since you admitted I used a plentitude of excellent sources and I clearly said I was not a Bible literalist. I realize I should have not created the article on Duncharris or done the instance of over 3R though as I admitted.
Second, the whole pirate thing is a misnomer. Wikipedia allows anonymous editing.
128.205.191.88 15:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- The "pirate" message is from Keith, not me; but, I agree with him.
- The "shadow" is a perfect example of why you are the cause of trouble. You are not a collaborator. Your use of anonymous editing is a nuisance to the community, and there is no advantage to it for you, either. It turns even those who are friendly toward you against you! Legalistic citations of the rules only make things worse; it makes your stubbornness all the more evident.
- Another nuisance that has been mentioned to you repeatedly, is your talk page style. Why do you insist on starting a new thread with every message? Why do you never thread your discussions, to keep them together with what has been discussed before? You have been urged again and again to change this, but you stubbornly persist.
- You quote the "rules" over and over. You don't understand the rules at all. This community values collaboration and respect above all. You have the whole idea of the "rules" completely backward. Instead of thinking of them as steering people toward cooperation, you cite these "rules" as proof that you are in your rights to be a nuisance. You are not in your rights.
- I would like to help you, Ken. But you do not want my help. You are stubborn in even the smallest things. How will you listen to me in the big things? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I think Ken is slipping, becoming more unreasonable and disrespectful. What are the options? KHM03 17:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- I have made little use of any of the disciplinary tools. I think that I have one block to my credit. I sense in this case that Ken is about to give up, assuming that Wikipedia "doesn't work". As a pastor you know what we're really dealing with, and it softens me considerably. If he were a personal acquaintance, I would probably suggest that there is help for the problems people have with him. Otherwise, I pray. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
TO: KMH03 AND MARK
I am not slipping. I have taken responsibility for my actions said I should not have created the bio of duncharris. I shouldn't have done this. Two wrongs do not make a right.
I also realize that mark is right I should use the term non-BSF.
Thirdly, I am very aware via the creationism article that it is the minority view people who are not respected. Are they given a chance to present info or is the article overrun by the consensus contrary to the minority view article policy? I think we know the answer to this question. But Wikipedia doesn't really care about respecting minority view articles in many cases. Now I realize that some want to take a cookie cutter approach and let the consensus view dominate, overrun and even trample minority view articles. This is not Wikipedia policy though.
Now you can say I am unreasonable but it is simply not true.
Now I saw Mark's "assuming that Wikipedia doesn't work" comment. I do think it is fair to ask if the creationism article is working. Is it working? Is there much civility like some (not many) internet creation-evolution forums I have seen? No there isn't civility. It is a failure. I believe Wikipedia fails in issues like creationism. I think it is a failure due to mismanagement or due to premeditation. But I believe it is a failure. I know it is not blasphemy to say Wikipedia fails in issues like this. Minority view people are often not respected at Wikipedia even in minority view articles.
Now why was the Conservative Christianity repeatedly changed to Christian right? Is it because of magnaninimous generosity of a person in the non-BSF camp? No it wasn't.
Perhaps in the future articles like creationism will have the minority view truly aired and done in accordance with the current Wikipedia rules. But I think this is unrealistic at this time as I see no commitment at this time.
- Yes, Ken. The Creationism article is working, because people are editing it. Gradually, by patience and cooperation, it is becoming an article that better represents the state of the disagreement.
- BSF is broken, right now, because people are not editing it; and that is your fault. You won't fix it, because you will not follow the smallest bits of advice meant to guide you in getting along. When are you going to learn how to follow the simple guidelines on WP:TP? Stop ignoring this.
- Have you added up how many violations of WP:Wikiquette, WP:AGF, WP:COOL, and WP:APR you commit on a daily basis? You do not work toward agreement, because you do not operate in the agreed fashion, but rather show contempt for conventions and push your point of view. You are a disruptive user because you do not take these things seriously. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I got your message ...
Dear Mark,
There came a point where I believed that certain non-BSF people were going to whittle down and mischaracterize the BSF position and could not be reasoned with. It comes from watching atheist/Christian boards where atheist of the militant atheist variety cannot be reasoned with and are quite hostile.
At that point, I mocked and taunted certain non-BSF people for censorship (which they were engaging in) and mocked sources/links like Farrell Till that the non-BSF side was offering. I do realize that I was very probably breaking Wikipedia rules there. I also recognize that asking Duncharris to prove he was sincere by actions and rebuffing what I thought was a faux friendship letter was somewhat premature. I should have made greater attempts to see if it was sincere.
I will tell you what I will do. I will send duncharris and MickWest a peace offering letter. If it works then fine. If not, nothing lost.
ken 19:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- It is not your business to determine whether people are "sincere"; and you have no business trying to determine whether they merit your effort to stop being disruptive. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Article standards
- to: Mark
- I don't think situations are static. The US and USSR are on pretty good terms now but before the relationship was quite poor. I hope the same thing happens here. I did send letters of reconciliation to dunc and mickwest.
- I told MickWest the following, "Also, I did incorporate the Seventh Day Adventist article at the CreationWiki article. I also mentioned that ancient Egyptians were circumcised although I am not certain how widespread it was and when it appeared to be more widespread. I guess I don't know enough about the Egyptian washing issue yet to intelligently comment on it." I hope he realizes that means I am not some person who wants to hide material.
- If this descends into another Wikipedia creationism situation I won't be at all surprised but I am not rooting for it. I don't think there is a commitment to the following passage below and that a cookie cutter one size fits all and forget about the Wikipedia minority view article culture prevails:
- "None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth." [11]
- In short, I think there should be cooperation within the Wikipedia minority view article rules.
- ken 23:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- I formatted your question according to a sensible guideline. What is your excuse for refusing to thread conversations, as I have for you, as suggested on WP:TP? Answer this question.
- Ken, read WP:IAR. If you understand it, you will understand two things that seem contradictory:
- the wrong-headedness of your refusal to follow sensible conventions
- your irrational insistence on absurd interpretations of the "minority views rule" will be ignored.
- Ken, read WP:IAR. If you understand it, you will understand two things that seem contradictory:
- If this doesn't tie your brain in a noodle, pay attention to this:
- minority views are immune to the usual rules of peer-reviewed credibility. That is, it is not considered a defect of the article if discredited, unpopular, revisionist, or heretical views are described in detail, even if they are rejected by the academic community.
- peer-review is a standard of article quality, and on that basis users should be expected to boldly improve articles to bring them up to a "higher standard"
- Do these two points seem contradictory to you? If so, it's because you don't yet "get it". Both ideas are designed to maximize boldness in the editing process. No one need worry that their views are not appropriate for Wikipedia, as long as they are not represented as "correct". However, there are standards of research that should be applied, in order to improve the articles. Peer-reviewed opinions are considered more "solid". Opinion and advocacy articles are regarded as more "POV", but are not for that reason inappropriate.
- If this doesn't tie your brain in a noodle, pay attention to this:
- When "rules" are quoted contrary to common sense and to the detriment of the article's quality, expect them to be ignored. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Talk page usage
to: Mark
I didn't understand before regarding the + deal on talk pages. Now I do.
Second, I do think MickWest and I have an understanding. I think our last conversation was quite civil. I think we both realize that working together will produce a better article but I could be wrong.
Third, I think if we get into "common sense" it is quite arbitrary. It is quite easy for anyone to justify something by calling it "common sense" and then just repeating that over and over when it is questioned.
Fourth, I think we should agree to disagree on the "minority article rule" issue. You can say my view of it is irrational and I could issue a rejoinder but I think it is best not to get into an argument about it. I think the best thing to do is see how MickWest and I work together since we seem to be pretty much the only ones mainly interested in the article. I also think we should avoid saying each others views are "irrational" and be more civil to each other.
ken 16:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffal
- You have not answered my question. Why do you not follow the conventions on Talk pages? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
== to: Mark, you question answered ==
I used the different style because I didn't quite understand the implications before and what was going on. Now I do.
ken 16:44, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdebuffalo
- You have not understood. Please read MickWest's description on your talk page. Read WP:TP. Compare it to what you have done here, in this note. Use :: to indent your comments under preceding comments. Thread your discussion beneath preceding discussion. Keep related discussion in its related topic header.
- Will you follow this? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think I understand the whole process of formatting and talkpages now. A minute ago I half understood it which was only a semi improvement. 17:20, 20 September 2005 ken 17:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- Excellent! Thank you.
- Please remove my personal comments (... "shameful" ... "inexcuseable" ...) on your talk page, unless you wish to bring a charge against me. It is embarrassing to both of us. Will you do this? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Good. I see that you have done it. Thank you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Common sense
- Now, regarding "irrational" and "common sense", "common sense" is not arbitrary here. The idea of "consensus" embodies this notion in a concrete form. When you are repeatedly told that your interpretation of the "minority article rule" is too wooden for others to agree with you, you are being confronted by "common sense". You will have to moderate your opinion, by incorporating what others think about how to interpret this "rule".
- That's what Wikipedia means by the firm rule that, "There are no rules" except for WP:5P. Collaboration, consensus, "common sense" then becomes the rule. Do you understand and agree with this? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- It was an excellent common sense choice, for example, to remove the extended quote, and replace it with a link to the article you considered interesting. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Mark, I see this article closely related to creationism. The creationism article has a huge criticisms of creationism but allows no affirmations. It also has Adam and Eve with a figleaf and mentions that in the picture there are navels. It has other problems as well. It is a POV article. Management knows this but doesn't care. The right of the minority view is trampled on. Wikipedia miserably fails in its creationism article. Do you agree with this?
- I believe Wikipedia has a systemic liberal/materialism slant which it alludes to in a description of itself.
- Lastly, I think we should avoid discussion of the "consensus vs. minority view article" issue. I am making efforts at collaboration and so is MickWest. I think this is the important issue. It might fail. It might not. But I do think that you are wise to not unlock the page for a while. I might take a vacation from Wikipedia for a while do to other concerns so this might make things inconvenient.
ken 19:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- A correction. It is the Young Earth creationism which has the adam/eve fig leaf and "navel comment"
ken 19:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- Please understand that, in order for things to go forward, there has to be some agreement about the issues that produced the locked article in the first place. If you cannot collaborate on the interpretation of the principle, it will be taken as a signal that you do not agree on how to go forward.
- Please do not give the impression that you are forcing the protection of the page, in order to protect your edits. Your first goal should be to remove protection. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- You asked whether I agree that there is a systematic bias on Wikipedia. Absolutely I do. Only those who share the bias cannot see it. However, unlike you, my aim is not to "correct" the bias, but to work with it according to what we can agree about, concerning "neutrality", factuality and article quality. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Collaboration
Ken, Are you working toward getting BSF unprotected, or are you stonewalling? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- == Not stonewalling and re: principles ==
- I am moving October 1, 2005. I have increased work responsibilities too. Second, I do believe in those principles.
- ken 21:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- The page should be unprotected as soon as possible. Will you agree to allow others to edit the page in the interest of higher standards, as described on your talk page? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to help, but...
I'd like to help Mark, but I'm not sure you're what you're asking. Can you explain? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- I've found that that particular editor strongly pushes a particular POV; I don't know what the correct response is, I've mostly avoided editing articles he has edited. Jayjg (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Mark, I'm sorry if it seems I have been ignoring you. I've been involved in a dispute with a rather difficult individual, who has now taken to insulting me, making up conspiracy theories about me, and wikistalking and reverting me, so I've been distracted. Do you still need assistance? I didn't find your intervention until now to be over-the-top. Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
?
You OK? KHM03 21:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. What is your impression? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- You just seem to be really aggressive the last few days...moreso than you ever were with the Calvinist/Wesleyan stuff. Don't get too carried away...the BSF article isn't worth it. KHM03 23:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. Much more aggressive and demanding - all those things I don't like - than I've ever been. But, I feel somehow obligated - not to the article, but to persons involved. N' Brer rabbit he come hippity-hoppity up d'road. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Just be careful. It's just not worth too much intervention...let Ken & Mick duke it out until intervention is needed; that's my advice. Step lightly. KHM03 23:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, Keith. I appreciate the advice. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
WWIII didn't break out! BSF grand reopening is without incident! ken 00:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
- That's great, Ken. Thank you for steering your way through to a good start. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Mark I just pretty much finished the BSF article at CreationWiki. Take a look and it has some cool stuff I think you might agree with believe it or not. Here it is: http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Bible_scientific_foreknowledge ken 03:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
See the latest edits by an anonymous user? Keith 18:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
- Where is the love. tsk. tsk. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Please weigh in on the Hyper-Calvinism talk page when you can. Thanks. Keith 23:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
RfA
Just to say thanks for supporting my RfA. Please let me know if you see me screw up. --Doc (?) 19:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Cfd
If you have a second please vote on this: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_29#Category:User_la-N. It was overturned last time because of some jokers. --Flex 15:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the Help!
Thanks a lot for your help but how did you come to know that somebody left such a message in my talk page? Are you an administrator? Can I be an administrator? If yes, then what are the requirements?
Thanks a lot in advance! PassionInfinity 20:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks! So you have added me to your watch list. OK! How can I know which pages have changed since last I last viewed? Specify some good help page about such tweaks and tricks. Thanks PassionInfinity 21:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Ascot Park Current pic
I thought you might to see Ascot Park today TVSRR 03:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- I guess a parking lot is more dignifying than a hole in the ground. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Misc.
Re: Binitarianism - - I asked COGwriter to weigh in on the talk page.
Re: COGwriter - - Seems like a well meaning guy who isn't just interested in defacing articles, but wants to make genuine contributions. This may be a chance to mentor someone (from a Wikipedia perspective), and also to witness to someone (from a Christian perspective). We should probably step lightly and politely.
- Yes, I agree that he is well-intentioned and patient. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Re: External links at Bible - - To quote one of my favorite movies, "Who are these guys?"
KHM03 23:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- The Church of God has been in turmoil since the passing of the Armstrongs. It's an interesting story, that I've run across here and there, but have never taken time to study in depth. I remember Garner Ted Armstrong's radio show, though. At that time, the strongest characteristic that I recall was "America in prophecy", anglo-Israelism, and his view that the "soul is in the blood" - that is, man doesn't have a soul, he is a soul. At least, that's the way I remember him talking. I don't recall hearing him speak of Christological controversies. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I've read a little...the main critiques are the Christological heresy and the anglo-Israeli weirdness. The "body as soul" stuff is a lot more widespread than Armstrongism...many even consider it quite orthodox (I personally don't care one way or the other). KHM03 18:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm tired of reverting this guy's vandalism. Might a block be appropo? KHM03 17:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- Looks like a little kid at play. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
You might be interested in the Historical persecution by Christians article, and the dispute about the "Modern" section. Jayjg (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
why did you remove Augustine of Hippo from the list of apostates?
Augustine of Hippo clearly fits the sociological definition of an apostate, that is a critical former member of a religious movement (in this case Manicheism), so I think he should mentioned. He voiced his extensive and intense criticism on Manicheism in his book Confessions and may be in his other writings too. (I always liked his writings by the way). Andries 20:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Visiting your place to talk about it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Markmconn wrote
- "Hi. If a person converts from agnosticism, for different example, do they fit the "sociological definition of an apostate"?
- Answer: No because they are not a critical former member of a religious movement. There are several meanings of apostates and the religious meaning is just one of them.
- Converts to Christianity from Hinduism who are critical about Hinduism are apostates from Hinduism in the sociological meaning of the word. (There are by the way even more narrow sociological definitions). Andries 20:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Markmconn wrote
About the forced conversions in Christianity, not all Churches say it is sinful. I know this first hand (I was once evangelical). Anyways I hope we have reached agreement on the editing now? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 22:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Which Christian church does not teach that forced conversions are sinful? The Catholics, Orthodox, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Mennonites? Or are you speaking of individuals?
- Anyway, I think that we have agreement regarding the page. but it may take a little more fiddling to nail down what we agree about. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
CoC
Here is a proposed framework for an improved article; feel free to add to it and/or edit in the days ahead. Eventually - hopefully - it can replace the POV monstrosity that currently exists. Thanks...KHM03 22:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)