| Revision as of 08:38, 30 June 2013 editDoc9871 (talk | contribs)23,298 edits →Neutral admin: Hmm← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:44, 30 June 2013 edit undoDennis Brown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions69,230 edits →Neutral admin: addNext edit → | ||
| Line 226: | Line 226: | ||
| I noticed that you help to settle contentious issues in various discussions, so I was hoping you could look at I started on Toddst1's talk page and provide your input. I'm just worried he might threaten me with a block. So I was hoping you could be a neutral admin to help settle the matter, so that it doesn't unnecessarily turn into a major battle over a minor issue (again). This admin and I butted heads in May, but have had no contact since then. Until he came to my talk page today regarding this matter. Thanks. --] (]) 08:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | I noticed that you help to settle contentious issues in various discussions, so I was hoping you could look at I started on Toddst1's talk page and provide your input. I'm just worried he might threaten me with a block. So I was hoping you could be a neutral admin to help settle the matter, so that it doesn't unnecessarily turn into a major battle over a minor issue (again). This admin and I butted heads in May, but have had no contact since then. Until he came to my talk page today regarding this matter. Thanks. --] (]) 08:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Oh, this is rich. How did this guy not get on my radar? ] ] 08:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | :Oh, this is rich. How did this guy not get on my radar? ] ] 08:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Mr IP, I'm a bit worried as to why you are ]. Everywhere I look and see you, it is usually nothing but wikilawyering. I'm not saying you are wrong on every single point, but your main contribution to Misplaced Pages seems to be drama. ] | ] | ] 12:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:44, 30 June 2013
| This is Jayron32's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 Archives |
|
/Archive for Sept-Dec 2006 |
ITN
In the Scripps ITN you state "One can merely write the same sentence after every single nomination". Please substantiate that with diffs or redact it. That's "the same sentence" and "every single nomination". I need the evidence so I can defend it please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- That is, stating "this is a niche topic" is a meaningless criticism. Anyone can write that after every nomination, but writing it doesn't help anyone determine consensus because that doesn't provide any evidence that whoever closes the nomination to act on it can use in making a decision. All topics are niche topics, if you mean "not interesting to all people". Nothing is interesting to all people, but that isn't a criteria for ITN. If you want to critique a nomination, and leave your critique above reproach, it would be best to find evidence that the topic is not in the news by showing how news sources ignore it. --Jayron32 22:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- So no, there's no evidence that I write "the same sentence after every single nomination" then? Please remove this. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've never said that you did. --Jayron32 12:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Cunning. Very cunning. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Huh? --Jayron32 16:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, will be watching out for you from now on, very clever of you! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Look, I don't understand whatever it is you are trying to say. I speak plainly, and I only really understand when others speak plainly. If you want be to understand what you are trying to say, please just come out and say it. I don't play little "nudge nudge wink wink" games, especially where apparently I'm not privy to whatever inside information you believe me to be in on. --Jayron32 17:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, your tag team approach has been well noted, it's fine. Let's move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Alright. I'm fine with being perplexed by your statements in this conversation if you are. I understand you less and less with each comment you make, but if you are OK with me not understanding you at all, I guess I really don't need to know. --Jayron32 17:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- See you and your colleagues around. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Again, don't understand. Need clear explanations as to what nefarious things you are accusing me of. Also, not sure who my colleagues are. You need to tell me what you are accusing me of because I don't have the first clue. --Jayron32 17:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing at all, of course. Just as you weren't accusing me of " writ the same sentence after every single nomination". Got your number! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't. What I said was that a person could write the same sentence after every nomination, that is the use of the phrase "niche topic" was not, itself, a valid criticism. Not that you made that criticism every time, but rather that THIS usage of "niche topic" was not itself backed up with any evidence. Merely asserting something is a niche topic doesn't make it so unless you can show evidence that reliable sources treat it as such. I never said you always make this assertion. Rather, what I said was that a person could make such an assertion all the time, because no topic interests all people, and that every single nomination could be considered by some people in their field of interest a niche topic. That's what my statement meant. At no point did I state that you thought that every topic was a niche topic, what I said was that the statement that "this is a niche topic" without evidence was the sort of thing that applied to all nominations and as such, doesn't help draw distinctions. Does that help clarify my statements? What I was asking for was for a more useful rationale for your opposition; that is to help the closing admin make a decision based on your opposition, it would be helpful if more than "I'm not interested in this topic"; a better opposition would be "The news media is not interested in this topic, and here's how you know (insert sources here)" It's fine to oppose nominations, I certainly don't expect anyone to agree with my stance on anything, but it would be a shame if your voice were not heard because you've made a poor rationale to back up your vote. I don't argue with people who disagree with me. I argue with unsound rationales. We would not have gone down this path had your rationale been different here, in this usage. Also, I have literally no clue whatsoever what you have given as a rationale or as a vote on any other nomination. Honestly, don't keep track of what you do. So, I wasn't accusing you of doing anything on other nominations because I really don't know. Is there something that I need to explain further, because I really don't wish to be misunderstood further. I'd also like to understand you more, so these unfortunate miscommunications don't keep going forward. If you could explain what you meant above, it would really help me as well. --Jayron32 18:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, well next time you and Thaddeus respond to my post within moments together (and yet neither of you pair up against any of the other oppose posts who offered even less of a rationale than I appear to have done), think twice and understand how your "joint" behaviour is concerning and could be considered bullying. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Look, I have no idea who Thaddeus is, I've never interacted with them before. You're tilting at windmills my friend. I've literally have no idea who they are, and have never worked with them before. I recognize the name because he's commented at ITN before, as I have, but I really have no idea who he is. --Jayron32 18:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's fine, just checking how you both edit together is enough evidence to suggest otherwise. I'm not pursuing it, but you both appear like magic every time I make a comment, yet ignore most other comments you (both) disagree with. Simple as that. Probably just a series of coincidences. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- In what ways do we both edit together? Seriously, if you're going to level such accusations, you could, you know, make a case. I seriously have never met, interacted directly, nor had any conversation with them before, on or off wiki, in my life. This conversation here with you is orders of magnitude longer in terms of interaction than I have ever had with him or her. --Jayron32 18:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, as I said, probably a coincidence. But it doesn't stop the bullying, you both chasing my comments down but leaving three or four other editors whose rationales (if even present) were expressed equally as poorly as you both found mine. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, I made one comment on one rationale you made at one nomination, and that amounts to bullying? Look, I'm having a hard time following you through all the turns this conversation is making. If I've wronged you in some way before this comment, I apologize, but I apologize more for not knowing it. I have no recollection of ever commenting on something you've said before, but you clearly have. If you could point out where we've had a bad interaction, or where I've done something wrong before, please help me out so I can properly apologize for it. I have no desire to be in a conflict here, and if I have done anything before this which has made you feel that I have been consistently singling you out, that is clearly wrong on my part, and I want to make that right. Please show me where I, in the past, have treated you unfairly because I want to properly make amends. --Jayron32 18:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- There's no need, just be aware that when you and your colleagues chase down other people's opinions in quick succession while ignoring many other similar opinions, it could be misconstrued on more than one level. Just some friendly advice I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, I made one comment on one rationale you made at one nomination, and that amounts to bullying? Look, I'm having a hard time following you through all the turns this conversation is making. If I've wronged you in some way before this comment, I apologize, but I apologize more for not knowing it. I have no recollection of ever commenting on something you've said before, but you clearly have. If you could point out where we've had a bad interaction, or where I've done something wrong before, please help me out so I can properly apologize for it. I have no desire to be in a conflict here, and if I have done anything before this which has made you feel that I have been consistently singling you out, that is clearly wrong on my part, and I want to make that right. Please show me where I, in the past, have treated you unfairly because I want to properly make amends. --Jayron32 18:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, as I said, probably a coincidence. But it doesn't stop the bullying, you both chasing my comments down but leaving three or four other editors whose rationales (if even present) were expressed equally as poorly as you both found mine. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- In what ways do we both edit together? Seriously, if you're going to level such accusations, you could, you know, make a case. I seriously have never met, interacted directly, nor had any conversation with them before, on or off wiki, in my life. This conversation here with you is orders of magnitude longer in terms of interaction than I have ever had with him or her. --Jayron32 18:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's fine, just checking how you both edit together is enough evidence to suggest otherwise. I'm not pursuing it, but you both appear like magic every time I make a comment, yet ignore most other comments you (both) disagree with. Simple as that. Probably just a series of coincidences. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Look, I have no idea who Thaddeus is, I've never interacted with them before. You're tilting at windmills my friend. I've literally have no idea who they are, and have never worked with them before. I recognize the name because he's commented at ITN before, as I have, but I really have no idea who he is. --Jayron32 18:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, well next time you and Thaddeus respond to my post within moments together (and yet neither of you pair up against any of the other oppose posts who offered even less of a rationale than I appear to have done), think twice and understand how your "joint" behaviour is concerning and could be considered bullying. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't. What I said was that a person could write the same sentence after every nomination, that is the use of the phrase "niche topic" was not, itself, a valid criticism. Not that you made that criticism every time, but rather that THIS usage of "niche topic" was not itself backed up with any evidence. Merely asserting something is a niche topic doesn't make it so unless you can show evidence that reliable sources treat it as such. I never said you always make this assertion. Rather, what I said was that a person could make such an assertion all the time, because no topic interests all people, and that every single nomination could be considered by some people in their field of interest a niche topic. That's what my statement meant. At no point did I state that you thought that every topic was a niche topic, what I said was that the statement that "this is a niche topic" without evidence was the sort of thing that applied to all nominations and as such, doesn't help draw distinctions. Does that help clarify my statements? What I was asking for was for a more useful rationale for your opposition; that is to help the closing admin make a decision based on your opposition, it would be helpful if more than "I'm not interested in this topic"; a better opposition would be "The news media is not interested in this topic, and here's how you know (insert sources here)" It's fine to oppose nominations, I certainly don't expect anyone to agree with my stance on anything, but it would be a shame if your voice were not heard because you've made a poor rationale to back up your vote. I don't argue with people who disagree with me. I argue with unsound rationales. We would not have gone down this path had your rationale been different here, in this usage. Also, I have literally no clue whatsoever what you have given as a rationale or as a vote on any other nomination. Honestly, don't keep track of what you do. So, I wasn't accusing you of doing anything on other nominations because I really don't know. Is there something that I need to explain further, because I really don't wish to be misunderstood further. I'd also like to understand you more, so these unfortunate miscommunications don't keep going forward. If you could explain what you meant above, it would really help me as well. --Jayron32 18:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing at all, of course. Just as you weren't accusing me of " writ the same sentence after every single nomination". Got your number! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Again, don't understand. Need clear explanations as to what nefarious things you are accusing me of. Also, not sure who my colleagues are. You need to tell me what you are accusing me of because I don't have the first clue. --Jayron32 17:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- See you and your colleagues around. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Alright. I'm fine with being perplexed by your statements in this conversation if you are. I understand you less and less with each comment you make, but if you are OK with me not understanding you at all, I guess I really don't need to know. --Jayron32 17:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, your tag team approach has been well noted, it's fine. Let's move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Look, I don't understand whatever it is you are trying to say. I speak plainly, and I only really understand when others speak plainly. If you want be to understand what you are trying to say, please just come out and say it. I don't play little "nudge nudge wink wink" games, especially where apparently I'm not privy to whatever inside information you believe me to be in on. --Jayron32 17:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, will be watching out for you from now on, very clever of you! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Huh? --Jayron32 16:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Cunning. Very cunning. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've never said that you did. --Jayron32 12:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- So no, there's no evidence that I write "the same sentence after every single nomination" then? Please remove this. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
| For your polite, positive and helpful recent reply at the reference desk. When I see a post that's both written in all caps, and appears solely to be looking to obtain money, I often assume it doesn't deserve a helpful reply. You went one step further, which is admirable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC) |
- Thank you for your kind words! --Jayron32 23:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like credit for not immediately hatting it as spam like i wanted to...but didn't.... μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Baby steps Medeis. The path to recovery is made with baby steps. --Jayron32 18:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like credit for not immediately hatting it as spam like i wanted to...but didn't.... μηδείς (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
scripps
could you edit that post on the countries to separate line item bullet points? it is hard to read or se the impact as is. thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- or could I? μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:ANI. WP:RM closes. WP:NAC and admin review of NAC closes
Hi Jayron,
I've responded to your reply at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Non-admin_closures_of_controversial_RM_discussions_-_appropriate.3F by continuing at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Continued. Your reply was unexpected, and I am interested in further replies.
The conversation did take an unexpected direction. I have always considered a WP:NAC to be reviewable by any admin, but my unstated point was that in the absence of any admin criticising the NAC, it was not a matter for WP:ANI. Questioning whether an admin may review a NAC of an RM was unexpected and unprepared, but I am fairly sure that it is desirable to have as an option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Admins are not forbidden from reviewing such an action, but they are not given special privilege because they are an admin. Admins are accorded the same rights as all editors, except that they can also block, protect, and delete. Reviewing the results of a closure does not require a person to block, protect, or delete anything, and thus is an action open to any other person at Misplaced Pages. --Jayron32 03:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
European Union
Love your work, however you need to make changes to the Eu page. Croatia just joined the Eu yesterday, so, the changes are yet to be made. When I tried to do so, it seemed I could not, coz u protected the page. So could you plz make the necessary changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M4pires (talk • contribs) 06:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- It looks as though someone else has already done this. Thanks for the heads up, but with high-profile items like this, there's usually someone who notices. Often many thousands of people. --Jayron32 16:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
ITN Valeant Pharmaceuticals
Hi Jayron32,
Since you seem to be around, can you take a look at Valeant Pharmaceuticals and either post or close? It's been sitting marked ready for a while --IP98 (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Done I have taken some time to read through the whole thing and made a call based on the comments therin. --Jayron32 18:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC) |
Option 7
Hi -- I think you might have misread option 7 of the RFC. It is proposing to ban any question that has anything whatsoever to do with medicine or the law, not just advice. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Campement
And here I thought the expression was "baisse mon cul". Bielle (talk) 02:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Lower my ass? (see baiser and baisser :-). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- My french is sketchy New England/Quebecois French. It's bise in my family. Confirmed here. Biser is a North American variant of the Metropolitan Baisser. Pretty much analogous to the arse/ass thing in English. --Jayron32 02:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, Sluzzelin, how you made me laugh! Sorry about that. If I am going to try to correct someone, I guess I need to be sure I have it right myself, first. I've never seen it written "bise" before, Jayron32, though I recognize the pronunciation from my friends who speak Joual. Bielle (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, my family is basically working-class New England French. I'm about 4 generations or so removed from Quebec even. I'm not too up on the lingo, I've forgotten a lot of it, but what little I did learn from my grandmother and neighbors and stuff bounces around in my head a bit. Biser may very well be a bad transliteration, but it is certainly pronounced that way, and I tend to revert to that when swearing, as it's how the french speakers around me swore when growing up. Not that there were that many of them, by my generation there aren't many cohesive French-speaking communities left in New England, and my French is more from High School and college courses (i.e. proper Academy French) than what I learned growing up, but a few of the more base things you don't learn in class still stick around. --Jayron32 03:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, Sluzzelin, how you made me laugh! Sorry about that. If I am going to try to correct someone, I guess I need to be sure I have it right myself, first. I've never seen it written "bise" before, Jayron32, though I recognize the pronunciation from my friends who speak Joual. Bielle (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deacon Jones, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages George Allen and Bruce Allen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
List of the oldest hospitals in the United States
Hi Jayron, can you help in this list. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I have no knowledge or resources in that area... --Jayron32 19:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Plainview, New York
Jayron, I am trying to get some assistance with the Plainview, New York article. An unregistered editor, User talk:108.6.204.178, has been updating the article with unsubstantiated claims. I've tried deleting, modifying, his text, etc. I've also tried to engage him/her their talk page as well as the article's talk page, with no success. I'd like to get the page restricted to registered users. Can you let me know how to proceed? ButtonwoodTree (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Done. In the future, you can make this request at WP:RFPP and any admin can handle it. --Jayron32 13:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Got it on WP:RFPP. Thanks for protecting, however, I now feel stupid. I didn't want to perpetuate an edit war, so I didn't update the text before I contacted you. In other words, the page is locked now, but with the offending text. Actually, I thought I was asking for it be restricted to registered users. Sorry I'm making this a challenge. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- When protecting articles in disputes, admins do not make decisions as to who is "correct", we protect the article wherever it is when we get to it. Get some outside commentary from uninvolved editors to establish a consensus version, and we can unprotect this after a consensus is clear. Try some of the suggestions at WP:DR. --Jayron32 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Got it on WP:RFPP. Thanks for protecting, however, I now feel stupid. I didn't want to perpetuate an edit war, so I didn't update the text before I contacted you. In other words, the page is locked now, but with the offending text. Actually, I thought I was asking for it be restricted to registered users. Sorry I'm making this a challenge. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
then go work on an article then
Brilliant remark, you really cut me off at the knees there. Did you actually read my post, below the header? It attempted to drum up business for a less sexy ANI attempt to protect the integrity of Misplaced Pages articles by topic-banning a long-running self-promoting sock/meat-puppet. How was that WP:POINTY exactly? Bishonen | talk 21:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC).
- Then start a thread on explicitly banning such person. That would be useful. It is much better to speak plainly and explain exactly what you want done, and burying a needed discussion about banning a person that needs to be banned inside of some snide satire is unlikely to attract the attention you want it to. It is good to ban self-promoting sockpuppets, which is why you should start a thread titled "Banning a self-promoting sockpuppet" and do just that. Starting yet another "There's too much drama at Misplaced Pages and ANI is destructive" thread, but doing so in a sarcastic way where you satirically state the opposite thing and THEN burying inside of all of that an idea that we need to ban a self-promoting sockpuppet does not seem a terribly efficient way to go about it. So my suggestion is to start a new thread, at the bottom of ANI, where you make the case in a clear, unpatronizing tone and make the case that way. --Jayron32 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is a thread on explicitly banning that person, clearly labelled. It's on ANI, like I said. I started it. It needed to get more interest, for it to be possible to ban, or for that matter clear, that person. I don't understand why you think another thread just like it would be more useful. If you merely want to express that you find me irritating (snide, patronizing, etc), fine. (It was reasonably effective. The ANI thread now has six comments instead of three.) Bishonen | talk 21:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC).
- I find you none of the above. I was recommending a course of action likely to produce results. --Jayron32 03:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- There is a thread on explicitly banning that person, clearly labelled. It's on ANI, like I said. I started it. It needed to get more interest, for it to be possible to ban, or for that matter clear, that person. I don't understand why you think another thread just like it would be more useful. If you merely want to express that you find me irritating (snide, patronizing, etc), fine. (It was reasonably effective. The ANI thread now has six comments instead of three.) Bishonen | talk 21:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC).
Help Desk SNAFU
Sorry about this, edit conflict issues, again.--ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- No big whoop. --Jayron32 17:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Stu Klitenic for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether if Stu Klitenic should be deleted or not. The conversation will be held at the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stu Klitenic until a consensus is held and everyone is welcome to join the conversation. However, do not remove the AfD message on the top of the page. Ashbeckjonathan 03:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting. --Jayron32 03:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Edit-a-thon Invitation (in person and remote participants welcome)
 |
Please join the Chemical Heritage Foundation Edit-a-Thon, June 20, 2013. Build content relating to women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Use the hashtag #GlamCHF and write your favorite scientist or chemist into Wikipedian history! |
Given your interest in Chemistry, I hope you'll check out the Edit-a-thon. We're inviting on-line and in-person participants. Thanks for all your hard work in this area! Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
oops
. Misclick whilst trying to close it myself. Apologies, and thanks for ending the thread. Pedro : Chat 22:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- No harm, no foul. --Jayron32 22:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Since you are raised Roman Catholic...
Since you are raised Roman Catholic, I am just wondering if you know about Old Catholics and Traditionalist Catholics. First of all, did you cancel your membership with the Roman Catholic Church by writing a letter to your bishop or the pope? Did they ask you why you were departing or wonder about your "unsaved soul" due to exiting the church? If you had become affiliated with a non-Christian religion or become completely nonreligious, then, in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church, would you be considered "unsaved"? Do you think Old Catholics and Traditionalist Catholics are genuine Catholics or Protestants? So-called "Protestants" typically refer to the splinter groups of the Protestant Reformation; however, it seems that later splinter groups are just called Catholics? Sneazy (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know much about either Old Catholics or Traditionalist Catholics, we attended a fairly mainstream Catholic Church. There was no "canceling my membership". I just stopped going at about 18 years old. They don't come find you and break your kneecaps if you don't file paperwork or anything. If you don't want to go, you just kinda, you know, don't go. As far as what I think about the various groups you name: I don't think. Salvation is a private matter between God and the individual, and it isn't my position to decide who God will or will not save. God doesn't need my help making those decisions. I've got my relationship with God, I do consider it part of my relationship to introduce others to Christ, but beyond that it isn't up to me to tell God who is, or is not, a genuine believer. He'll figure that out on His own. --Jayron32 00:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- I thought salvation was supposed to be a public matter, between God and humanity, and whether you have faith in this stuff would determine your fate. Sneazy (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's not like a club you can resign from, Sneazy. I also turned away from the RCC, and also around the age of 18. There's no point writing to anyone about it, as the Church would continue to regard you as a member till the day you die. Baptism is irrevocable, even when done (as is almost always the case) when the baptisee is a tiny baby and had no say in it. So, you let the church continue to regard you as a member, while you quietly get on with the rest of your life. -- Jack of Oz 00:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- If the church continues to regard you as a member till the day you die, then does that mean you are still obligated to attend Mass every Sunday and expected to raise your children Catholic? Is the religion supposed to take control of your entire life rather than having something philosophical to do on a Sunday? What if you hold unorthodox theology and practice? Do you just fill out that you are Roman Catholic on forms? If you are married, then would you have to put your faith above everything, including your spouse? Are you going to have a Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, or humanist funeral? Sneazy (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- Who is obligating what? What kind of world do you live in where people come to your house and drag you to Sunday Mass. No, look, this is how it works. You don't want to go to church. You stop going to church. Game over. There are no forms to fill out. You just go on living your life exactly as before, except you stop going to Mass. --Jayron32 03:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- (e/c) Only in the eyes of the Church. But once you decide you no longer wish to be associated with them, their beliefs and attitudes have no bearing on your life. They become irrelevant to you. If you live your life completely independently of the Church, you do what the hell you like with your kids as long as it's within the law. Whether you enter Roman Catholic or None on forms is entirely a matter for you. Same with funerals. Remember, a church is not the government or the law; they may have their rules, just as any organisation does, but if you cease your association with them, nothing they say or think or believe or teach has any relevance to your life, so you simply disregard them. They are not going to be hunting you down. -- Jack of Oz 03:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- If the church continues to regard you as a member till the day you die, then does that mean you are still obligated to attend Mass every Sunday and expected to raise your children Catholic? Is the religion supposed to take control of your entire life rather than having something philosophical to do on a Sunday? What if you hold unorthodox theology and practice? Do you just fill out that you are Roman Catholic on forms? If you are married, then would you have to put your faith above everything, including your spouse? Are you going to have a Roman Catholic, Southern Baptist, or humanist funeral? Sneazy (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Have a kitten. Today is your lucky day!
Sneazy (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Church choir
I was wondering about your church choir. Who sings in the choir? Do you encourage everyone in the congregation to participate or only a selected number of individuals with the best singing voices? If the latter, what would happen to those voices who want to participate but are discouraged due to the perceived lack of singing talent in pop music? What if a person is better at singing classical and children's songs rather than upbeat pop music or country music? Sneazy (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- 1) Anyone that wants to sing and isn't terrible (i.e. not me) generally gets to sing. The purpose of the choir (during traditional service) and the praise team (during contemporary service) is to lead the rest of the congregation in singing. The point is to worship God through music, as a corporate congregation, not to put on a show, so the emphasis is on having a choir and/or praise team that leads others in singing. 2) We have two services at the church I attend: a contemporary service where contemporary christian music is played, accompanied by a standard "rock" arrangement (guitar, bass, drums, keyboards) and a traditional service where the traditional hymns are played, accompanied by piano and organ. People find the service to worship in where they feel the most comfortable. I don't know what would happen if someone wanted to sing but was so bad as to be a distraction; I don't generally deal with auditioning and that stuff. I play guitar. The minister of music handles the administrative aspect of organizing the choirs and bands. As far as children's music: we also have a children's service which runs at the same time as the contemporary service: people that have the skills or interest in working in children's music lead that service in singing. Does that help answer your questions? --Jayron32 20:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Sneazy (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
huge penis
Hola. You know I understand the BLP concern--I am the first to hat or delete. Did you think I would post something that wasn't already published in every source in Britain plus a few elsewhere. See the sources I provided at the talk page, and please restore the question. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you are in the right, the discussion at WT:RD will bear you out and I will restore. Give this the time to see where consensus will lie. There's no need to rush. Until then, please leave the contested material out. --Jayron32 02:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Why did you become a Southern Baptist?
Hi again,
Why did you become a Southern Baptist? What is so attractive about this denomination that makes you want to leave your previous one? Why not stay loyal to the religious denomination of your birth? Has there been anyone in your life who asked you about your choice as a Southern Baptist? Did you baptize your children in the Roman Catholic denomination or the Baptist denomination? If you baptized your children in the Southern Baptist denomination, what did the Roman Catholic priest think of that? If you baptized your children in the Catholic denomination, what did the Baptist pastor think of that? And how would you react if your children reject Christianity altogether and seek another religious denomination, another religion, or become nonreligious?
Sneazy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's hard to answer why. I had left Catholicism (and Christianity in general) by about 17-18, and I didn't rediscover my faith until I was in my 20s. At the time, my wife and I were trying out different congregations to find one that "fit", and the one that did happened to be a Southern Baptist congregation. I think the reason why I am a member of a Baptist church today is because the denomination is so much built from the bottom up; each church is sovereign entity, and there is no higher levels of hierarchy beyond the church which makes decisions for it. You can literally walk into 5 different Baptist churches and get 5 very different experiences, and so I am a member of a Baptist church because this Baptist church, which is to say the people that make it up, provide me with the sort of community I find helps me grow in my faith. Since we have been Baptists since before my children were born, they have not been Baptized at all. My older one is just now the age when children first start making the decision to be Baptized. Baptists practice believer's baptism, which means that one must chose to be baptized freely, and the decision to be baptized comes after the decision to follow Christ. When my children are ready, they will choose all on their own when to be Baptized. It could be next week, next month, or years down the road. They will get no pressure from me, and certainly not the church we attend, to do so at any time, but will get full support when they choose to do so. The "personal" nature of the way Baptist churches run, which focus on the one-on-one relationship with Christ, is a key feature of them, and part of that personal nature is the ability to use one's free will, without coercion of any sort, to choose to follow Christ. If my Children reject the Christian faith altogether, I will of course be disappointed, but I will still love them the same. It is their own free will, and while I wish them to freely choose Christianity, if they don't, they don't deserve my love and support any less. --Jayron32 01:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have conversed with an Anglican, who has given me an explanation and reasoning of his infant baptism and the infant baptism of his child. Infant baptism may not sound like such a bad idea. Typically, people raise their children in their own faith or belief system, so it would make sense that an infant baptism is the promise that the parents are obligated to raise the child in his/her own faith until the child comes to age, attends formal schooling, and becomes confirmed in his/her teenage years. The confirmation of a child coming from a Roman Catholic/Lutheran/Presbyterian/Anglican/Episcopalian household would be comparable to the willful consent of baptism for a child coming from a Baptist household. Regardless of where a person comes from, he or she will always be influenced by his or her upbringing. I am not sure if he was trying to be apologetic about his faith or something, but his argument for infant baptism was so darn convincing. In any case, I suspect whether one finds whatever method of baptism as attractive option largely depends on one's underlying values. I wish I may attend church someday, even though churchgoers in my residential neighborhood do not fit my age category 18-25 years. I attend university, but I live off-campus with my parents. Sneazy (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- We have a similar ceremony in a Baptist church, absent the baptism part, called a "Child dedication". It is at that ceremony that the parents commit to raising the Child in the Christian faith, and that the church body commits to supporting the family to that end, so that serves that purpose. In the Baptist church, there is no equivalent of "Confirmation" as found in Catholicism/Anglicanism/Methodism and other faiths. Baptism is seen as the point where a person is supposed to take control of their own faith journey (albeit, with as much support as needed, especially in the case of young children). --Jayron32 02:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Does it matter if beliefs are important? What if a person attends a Baptist church but wishes to baptize his/her child? Can that person really ask the Baptist pastor to do that? Sneazy (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- If a person believed that, they wouldn't be attending a Baptist church. The Methodists down the street will happily oblige, however. --Jayron32 02:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- So, does that mean that sectarian beliefs really do matter? What if, by location, the Southern Baptist Church, is the closest church in a person's neighborhood and so a person attends that one? Then that person thinks independently and wishes to baptize the child in the church that he/she has membership to. Can the Southern Baptists do that out of ecumenism? Sneazy (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- It simply isn't done at all in a Baptist church. I really can't imagine a person who wanted to baptize their infant child would be insistent upon doing so in a church that simply didn't do that. Your line of thinking here makes no sense. If there was one church for 1000 miles, and that church was a Baptist church, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do it, because that's not what Baptists churches do. It's a core belief of Baptist churches. They just don't do infant baptisms. A person would not have become a member of a Baptist church if they didn't agree with the concept of Believer's Baptism, anymore than a person who became a Sunni Muslim would insist that they didn't believe in praying at set times of the day, or that a person who became a Catholic refused to go to confession. --Jayron32 02:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Bad question. It seems that choosing a church boils down to one's beliefs about doctrines. As with much of life, any choice would have benefits and drawbacks. The benefit would probably be being part of a community of like-minded believers. The drawback would probably be that the community will probably expect that you would attend church every Sunday for the rest of your life, encouraging full and active participation, after knowing that you already have made a lifetime commitment to Christ. Then, there is the thought of just being inspired from the Bible and other religious literature without ever becoming affiliated with an organized religion. The benefit is that a person can believe in what he/she wants and claims no loyalty to any particular set of doctrines, but rather an amalgamation of many workable belief systems. The drawback would probably be that person, if he/she is unbaptized, will probably not be recognized as Christian by any Christian organization. Baptism is said to only be performed in front of the congregation, and if a person has no loyalty to a specific congregation, it's not going to work. Maybe a person may just choose a random church (the Roman Catholic Church due to its large size and mainstream status), arbitrarily agrees with the church's beliefs, and but really borrows belief systems from many workable belief systems (Taoism, Confucianism, Judaism, etc.) rather than adhering to one set of doctrines (on a private level). Sneazy (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah you're on your own there. Good luck with all that. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 03:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you add capitalize or lowercase certain words? Spanish speakers actually do capitalize "Dios" or "Biblia", because those words mean "God" or "Bible" respectively. What's with lowercasing them? And why do you capitalize "baptize" and "child"? What is so important about "child"? Eh? Sneazy (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm lazy and bad at writing. --Jayron32 04:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Bad question. It seems that choosing a church boils down to one's beliefs about doctrines. As with much of life, any choice would have benefits and drawbacks. The benefit would probably be being part of a community of like-minded believers. The drawback would probably be that the community will probably expect that you would attend church every Sunday for the rest of your life, encouraging full and active participation, after knowing that you already have made a lifetime commitment to Christ. Then, there is the thought of just being inspired from the Bible and other religious literature without ever becoming affiliated with an organized religion. The benefit is that a person can believe in what he/she wants and claims no loyalty to any particular set of doctrines, but rather an amalgamation of many workable belief systems. The drawback would probably be that person, if he/she is unbaptized, will probably not be recognized as Christian by any Christian organization. Baptism is said to only be performed in front of the congregation, and if a person has no loyalty to a specific congregation, it's not going to work. Maybe a person may just choose a random church (the Roman Catholic Church due to its large size and mainstream status), arbitrarily agrees with the church's beliefs, and but really borrows belief systems from many workable belief systems (Taoism, Confucianism, Judaism, etc.) rather than adhering to one set of doctrines (on a private level). Sneazy (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- It simply isn't done at all in a Baptist church. I really can't imagine a person who wanted to baptize their infant child would be insistent upon doing so in a church that simply didn't do that. Your line of thinking here makes no sense. If there was one church for 1000 miles, and that church was a Baptist church, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do it, because that's not what Baptists churches do. It's a core belief of Baptist churches. They just don't do infant baptisms. A person would not have become a member of a Baptist church if they didn't agree with the concept of Believer's Baptism, anymore than a person who became a Sunni Muslim would insist that they didn't believe in praying at set times of the day, or that a person who became a Catholic refused to go to confession. --Jayron32 02:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- So, does that mean that sectarian beliefs really do matter? What if, by location, the Southern Baptist Church, is the closest church in a person's neighborhood and so a person attends that one? Then that person thinks independently and wishes to baptize the child in the church that he/she has membership to. Can the Southern Baptists do that out of ecumenism? Sneazy (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- If a person believed that, they wouldn't be attending a Baptist church. The Methodists down the street will happily oblige, however. --Jayron32 02:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Does it matter if beliefs are important? What if a person attends a Baptist church but wishes to baptize his/her child? Can that person really ask the Baptist pastor to do that? Sneazy (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- We have a similar ceremony in a Baptist church, absent the baptism part, called a "Child dedication". It is at that ceremony that the parents commit to raising the Child in the Christian faith, and that the church body commits to supporting the family to that end, so that serves that purpose. In the Baptist church, there is no equivalent of "Confirmation" as found in Catholicism/Anglicanism/Methodism and other faiths. Baptism is seen as the point where a person is supposed to take control of their own faith journey (albeit, with as much support as needed, especially in the case of young children). --Jayron32 02:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have conversed with an Anglican, who has given me an explanation and reasoning of his infant baptism and the infant baptism of his child. Infant baptism may not sound like such a bad idea. Typically, people raise their children in their own faith or belief system, so it would make sense that an infant baptism is the promise that the parents are obligated to raise the child in his/her own faith until the child comes to age, attends formal schooling, and becomes confirmed in his/her teenage years. The confirmation of a child coming from a Roman Catholic/Lutheran/Presbyterian/Anglican/Episcopalian household would be comparable to the willful consent of baptism for a child coming from a Baptist household. Regardless of where a person comes from, he or she will always be influenced by his or her upbringing. I am not sure if he was trying to be apologetic about his faith or something, but his argument for infant baptism was so darn convincing. In any case, I suspect whether one finds whatever method of baptism as attractive option largely depends on one's underlying values. I wish I may attend church someday, even though churchgoers in my residential neighborhood do not fit my age category 18-25 years. I attend university, but I live off-campus with my parents. Sneazy (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Request for peer review
Hi Jayron32,
I saw your name listed as a volunteer for peer review - particularly for articles related to sports. We are working on expanding the article on Swedish footballer Emilia Appelqvist to ensure it is not deleted and also to improve the article to a higher assessment class. Would you be willing to take a look at the article and provide feedback? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
AN
I have provided the information you requested at the AN discussion Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_it_this_easy.... Regards Taroaldo ✉ 05:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Sola Scriptura and other issues
I think I have a problem with Sola Scriptura. The truth is, it is not easy making a judgment without knowledge on how the document comes to be. I am no expert on the Bible or ancient Semitic cultures. For instance, in Genesis 2:17, God tells the first man (Adam) and the first woman (Eve) that if they eat from the fruit, they would surely die -- but they don't! What is going on here? Sola Scriptura will probably not work for me, because what's the use of making up my own interpretations? Instead of making up my own interpretations, I think I should just try to see how many different people interpret the case. It's probably impossible to sample everybody, so whatever answer I get, the answer will always be biased. But hey, at least it's still an answer!
Another concern is that I do not understand how the Bible can possibly be treated as one book, and make a coherent theology out of it without biasing or favoring one part of the Bible over another. First of all, why treat the Bible as one book in the first place when really the Bible comes from many different and separate sources that are compiled together in narratives? Second of all, why base a theology on the "whole Bible" when the structure of the canon varies and the sources come from different places? Maybe favoring one passage to support a particular doctrine is not so bad as religious people think (i.e. the fact that Roman Catholics use a verse from John and not Matthew to support the doctrine of Transubstantiation), because I am not sure how the Bible can be read as a coherent work.
Since I assume you are a practicing Christian, how do you manage to reconcile all of this? Or have you ever thought of this issue before? Do you just take for granted that the Bible can be understood by scripture alone and without consultation from many different scholars from various denominations and sects? Sneazy (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Sola Scriptura doesn't really say "make up your own interpretations". Instead it says "let the Holy Spirit guide your interpretations". Since every Christian has received the Holy Spirit, each is capable of understanding Scripture through the Holy Spirit; that is man-made exegesis is not divinely inspired, ONLY the Bible is, so only the Bible is capable of presenting the Word of God. Humans, being fallible, cannot properly comprehend the Word of God alone, and so must let the Holy Spirit guide their understanding through prayer and study. I use the work of other Christians to help me work through the Bible, I participate in Bible Studies, I talk through my understanding with other Christians, and I listen to other and read what others have written. The deal is, I also understand that none of that, by itself, is enough. It's not that I don't take in what others say, it's just that the understanding is that the Bible itself is alone the Word of God, and not what others think it means. --Jayron32 03:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wouldn't "let the Holy Spirit guide your interpretations" be completely meaningless to an atheist or agnostic, or at least mean the same thing as "make up your own interpretations" to the atheist or agnostic? Still, two persons may both claim that they are being "guided" by the "Holy Spirit" and come up with two different conclusions! Now what? Maybe it's just a sign from God that the passage should be left alone or not be taken so seriously? Sneazy (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Of course its meaningless to an agnostic or an athiest. Lots of religious thinking is meaningless to an outsider. --Jayron32 03:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wouldn't "let the Holy Spirit guide your interpretations" be completely meaningless to an atheist or agnostic, or at least mean the same thing as "make up your own interpretations" to the atheist or agnostic? Still, two persons may both claim that they are being "guided" by the "Holy Spirit" and come up with two different conclusions! Now what? Maybe it's just a sign from God that the passage should be left alone or not be taken so seriously? Sneazy (talk) 03:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Neutral admin
I noticed that you help to settle contentious issues in various discussions, so I was hoping you could look at this thread I started on Toddst1's talk page and provide your input. I'm just worried he might threaten me with a block. So I was hoping you could be a neutral admin to help settle the matter, so that it doesn't unnecessarily turn into a major battle over a minor issue (again). This admin and I butted heads in May, but have had no contact since then. Until he came to my talk page today regarding this matter. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, this is rich. How did this guy not get on my radar? Doc talk 08:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- Mr IP, I'm a bit worried as to why you are here. Everywhere I look and see you, it is usually nothing but wikilawyering. I'm not saying you are wrong on every single point, but your main contribution to Misplaced Pages seems to be drama. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)