User talk:Farsight001: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:19, 9 February 2010 editSineBot (talk \| contribs)Bots2,555,355 editsm Signing comment by Johncab593 - ""← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:39, 20 November 2023 edit undoDonner60 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers235,914 edits not around since January 2017
(183 intermediate revisions by 82 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{not around\|3=16 January 2017}}
	Talk pages are for talking. :)
			].]]
			{{Archives\|auto=yes\|search=yes\|title=Look far away; not back\|image=File:Caspar David Friedrich - Wanderer above the sea of fog.jpg\|image-size=100px}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archive = User talk:Farsight001/Archive %(counter)d
			\|algo = old(30d)
			\|counter = 1
			\|maxarchivesize = 200K
			\|minthreadsleft = 10
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			}}

			== ] ==
	== Purgatory Edits? ==

			Hi,<br>
	Any particular reason why you reverted the edits I added on the origin of purgatory? They has two book references, and links to all the biblical translations. Did you just not like people adding stuff? :P <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692210171 -->

			== Colin Patterson Reference ==
			On what basis do you have the right to decide that my reference is "not a valid external source"? It's pertinent to the subject matter. Stop censoring the content to favor your personal viewpoints.
			] (]) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85

			First of all, if the outside references "must be directly about the subject", then please explain how the reference to ARN, which you didn't touch, has anything to do with the subject? Why can the article discuss side issues (like the quote), but then references cannot?
	==Apostolic Succession ref.==
	Hi Farsight001! the ref. are on the wiki pages themselves, but I will add those links from the pages themslves :)== ] ] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			Furthermore, why is Access Research Network deemed "acceptable" while creation.com is not? Why can the creationism page be full of references to the most well-known atheist website on the web, Talk Origins? What you're propagating is nothing more than a double standard. If your concern was merely for alphabetization, then rather than deleting the reference, how about putting it in the correct order? Stop putting up a smokescreen and admit you're censoring me- or correct what you did.
			] (]) 21:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85

			== administrators' noticeboard/incidents: Jesus page ==
	== Removal of "Objections to Papacy" Material Inappropriate ==

			] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.
	Farsight001 - your removal of my additions to the "Objections to the Papacy" section of the "Pope" article were inappropriate. These objections to the Papacy are the common Protestant retorts to Papal claims based on Scripture. The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible even includes the "petra" and "petros" information in its foot-notes. There are many evangelical and Protestant Bible commentaries that note Matthew 18 and the seemingly unexceptional place the apostle Peter held within the early church as evidenced by Acts, Paul's prominence as an apostle, and Peter's own epistles. That you'd remove this information from the section of the article devoted to anti-papal arguments is puzzling, since these are the ''main'' arguments that evangelical Protestants make against the Papacy. As it is, the article gives the wrong impression that the main objections Protestants have to the Papacy have to do with past abuses of the office and its rejection of Church/State separation, when in fact most Protestants have serious Biblical and theological objections to the existence of a monarchical office within the Christian Church. The Catholic apologists and their convoluted, speculative interpretation of Matt. 16:16-18 receives prominent placement in the top section of the article, while I placed the Protestant object in an obscure paragraph toward the end of the article, out of respect for the fact that Catholicism should be able to speak for itself before other voices chime in. But removing this information from the article strikes me - and forgive me if I speculate improperly about your motives - as an attempt to keep the article pro-Papal, on the balance, rather than objectively surveying the range of thought on the subject. --] (]) 16:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

			Let's hope we can finally reach consensus. ] (]) 16:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
	Hello, Farsight. Thank you for responding so quickly to my rebuttal on your talk page. First, your view that Petra and Petros are equivalent words is simply the position of Catholic apologists, and is a matter of dispute, which is why the NRSV, translated by a committee of Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox scholars, notes it in the footnotes. My reason for including it in the "objections" section is simply that is a common Protestant objection, and the current section doesn't seem to correctly summarize Protestant objections. Perhaps, as a Catholic, you feel that Protestantism is an invalid religion, and therefore doesn't merit any substantial space in the article. Whatever you believe, the fact remains that the Protestant reformation was a rather big event in history, and Catholic-Protestant disputes are relevant to most students of Christianity.

			== ] ==
	I am going to revisit the article and put the following in the "Objections" section:

			I see that you are well-versed in ] and ], so I will make this very clear to you. I am replacing the edit that I made and asking for consensus. I am warning you: do not remove my contributions until consensus is reached, or I will have to add a few more warnings to the dozens already present on this page. Go with God. <span style="font-family: Brush Script MT"><span style="color:#983498">'''~LL~''' (]) (])</span></span> 05:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
	<b>Many non-Catholics point out that Matthew 16:16-18 use two different forms of the word translated "rock." The Greek passage uses the masculine form "Petros" and the feminine form "petra." Protestant apologists sometimes claim that the "rock" on which the Church is built is not Peter, since Peter is "Petros," but Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ. <ref>Christ the Rock, the Rooster's Crow, and the Cross. http://www.ichthys.com/mail-Rock%20Rooster%20Cross.htm</ref> Catholic apologists claim that since "Petros" and "petra" have the same root, the two words simply reflect their grammatical placement in the sentence and still refer to Peter.<ref>http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2004/04/petros_vs_petra.html</ref>

			== February 2016 ==
	Protestant apologists also cite sections of the New Testament (for example, James' apparent leadership role among the early apostles as recorded in Acts 15:19, Paul's rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11) that they say cast doubt on Peter's leadership role in the early Church as proof that the Papacy did not exist in Biblical times. Catholic apologists cite passages such as John 21:15-19 as proof that Peter exercised pastoral authority over the other apostles.</b>
			] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. Your edits appear to be ] and have been or will be ] or removed.
			* If you are engaged in an article ] with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's ] page, and ask for independent help at one of the ].
			* If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ].
			Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's ], and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through ]. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in ]. ''I am very bold in my editing, I reverted your edit because it was not constructive, and I started a voting process on the talk page. I am familiar with Misplaced Pages policy and I am a trusted user with two permissions to show for it. I will ask you this once as politely as possible: do not start an edit war with me.''<!-- Template:uw-disruptive2 --> <span style="font-family: Brush Script MT"><span style="color:#983498">'''~LL~''' (]) (])</span></span> 05:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
			:Fake warnings from people unfamiliar with wikipedia policy do not scare me. You can see the dozens of them above. The next step they always go for is to report me to someone and then THEY get blocked because they're the ones violating policy, just as you are. Check thyself before thy wreck thyself.] (]) 05:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

			== By 'scientific consensus' you mean your opinion? ==
	That seems like a fair enough summary of objections to the Papacy based on Greek grammar, with balance given to both sides. Since there are only three branches of Christianity (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox, although perhaps you could split Pentecostalism off as a fourth), there's no reason why the most common Protestant objections wouldn't be included in the section. I will also, of course, place my contribution on the article's Discussion page and we can seek the consensus of others. Cheers. Hope to see you in Heaven after God forgives my "invincible ignorance" and lets me out of my millennia of Purgatorial Hell for not kneeling before His designated Authority on Earth. :) --] (]) 01:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

			Is this what usually happens? I join wikipeida and then I have you following me around even though I've cited scholarly sources. You're claiming 'scientific consensus' without demonstrating what that consensus is - you're just claiming it for yourself. In which case isn't what you mean by scientific consensus just short hand for your view?
	== thank you ==

			] (]) 23:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
	For taking care of the RCC page, especially in all your difficult dealings with the person who was trying to delete sourced and consensused information. ] <sup> ]</sup> 07:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

			:{{tps}} {{ping\|You just cost me six thousand dollars}} The source you cited was ]'s "]," which rejects mainstream science's understanding of the universe. You cannot seriously pretend that Lerner alone is the totality of scientific consensus. ] (]) 00:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
	==Your participation is disruptive==
	If there truly is a wide-ranging consensus against my edits, not only should someone be able to present a coherent argument against them, but there should be no shortage of people to revert them, and thus it should not be necessary for someone who has acted in an egregiously uncivil manner and who has explicitly refused to participate in the talk page discussion to be the one to preform such edits. You cannot pick and choose what ways you will shun me. If you're shunning me, then you should not be falsely telling that I am engaging in vandalism, nor should you be reverting my edits.] (]) 04:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

			::What I'm saying is clear - that Farsight is deleting edits with reference to a supposed 'scientific consensus' without making reference to what that consensus is. He's claiming the mantle of defender of the scientific consensus without having any intention of setting out what that consensus is. Is this how wikipedia usually works?
	:there was a coherent argument. You are just willfully closing your ears to anyone who disagrees with you. You have a history of disruptive edits on other pages for the same reason. If you don't want to abide by consensus(that was agreed upon before you even showed up at the page, as well as again after you started editing), then find another wiki to edit. I shunned the discussion, but that does'nt mean I'm just going to sit back and let you make disruptive edits all you want] (]) 05:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

			::I'm not pretending Lerner alone is the totality scientific consensus. I'll add more sources to demonstrate there's other opinions besides his. But I can guess what will happen - you'll just change the goalposts to find another reason to object to any reference to the age of voids in the article, right?
	Not agreeing with you is not the same as closing my ears, and saying things like "you can't fix NPOV by adding more POV" when making sure that every POV is mentioned is EXACTLY what NPOV means is not a coherent argument. Your accusations of bad faith are inappropriate anywhere, but they are especially inappropriate in edit summaries. I do not have a history of disruptive edits; I have a history of making edits that people, such as you, LABEL disuptive so that they can justify reverting them. I have already pointed out the Wiki policy says that NPOV trumps consensus. Rather than addressing that argument, you simply declared that you were shunning me, and then declared that I was "willfully closing ears". What a hypocrite. And yes, if you refuse to explain why me edits are not valid, that does mean you shouldn't revert them. Reverting edits while rfusing to participate in discussions is the very definition of edit warring.] (]) 00:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

			::] (]) 00:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
	:Look buddy. Please look. Your talk page has mention of blocks for improperly editing past articles. You have multiple warnings to stop vandalizing the ] article, and no one on the rcc page agreed with your edits. I know it can seem like people are out to get you, but think of Occam's razor here - the simplest answer is most likely the right one. So is it more likely that one person (you) is in the wrong, or a bunch of people (everyone else)? I encourage you to calm down, and re-read very carefully npov, consensus, vandalism, notability, and reliability policies. There is far more than the one paragraph of npov policy you keep quoting at work here. ] (]) 01:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

			:::You mean you at ], stating ''"At the moment this is a heavily biased article about a scientific theory. The Big Bang is a theory only"''. That's enough to get any sensible editor alarmed. Any editor who then takes a look at , sees that your very first edit there was reversed. Getting curious, one sees that you're as a ] for 'anti-scientific' "arguments." Supercluster? . And then you come complaining here because we don't buy this kind of thing. So, this statement above,
	So,farsight,you think you can use the wiki policies againstme ,
			::::''"You're claiming 'scientific consensus' without demonstrating what that consensus is - you're just claiming it for yourself. In which case isn't what you mean by scientific consensus just short hand for your view?"''
	THAT ARTICLE IS NEGATIVE BIASED AND NOT NEUTRAL,you let the real Alberto picture inside or there will be a real problem
			:::is cheap rhetorics, as you know yourself. Please familiarize yourself with basic Wiki-policies, and don't use it as an faith-propaganda bulletin board. ] -] 05:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
	the letter of the archbishop is true,so you're afraid that everybody will see the true Alberto,I read the policies
	and that article that a roman catholic wrote is against the policies,it tells people that Alberto is a fraud
	but the truth is,that Alberto was a jesuit priest

			== Archive ==
	I apologize ,I give up you're right.The R.C.C. is a true church.I will never vandalize that article again

			Hi Farsight001. I've taken the liberty to ] for you, and added MiszaBot, for automatic archiving. The far-sight at this talkpage got obscured by the large amount of threads. MiszaBot is now set at rachiving when there are more than ten threas at the page. Best regards, ] -] 06:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
	Oh,The Inquisitions lasted 600 years,with the fourth crusade also came the inquisitions and you don't know how many were born
	at that time.What does the Obelisk in the Vatican stands for?? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Good luck ==
	I know that crosses are pagan and I know that freemasons use the obelisk worldwide.
	The execution on the cross was used in ancient babylon.
	Jesus died on the cross to conquer sin,death,hell and Satan.After 3 days Christ rose fom the dead.If you trust in the Lord
	Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour you shall be safed and go to heaven Acts 8:37 says:"And Phillip said,If thou believest with all thine heart ,thou mayest.And he answered and said,I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
	But the R.C.C. removed that passage,because it contradicts it's doctrine.
	The R.C.C. says you've to be a good Catholic(confessions to priest,eat the wafer at the Eucharist,pray the rosary,good works etc.)to go to heaven...
	and all that awaits a faithful catholic is purgatory,(only found in catholic bibles and Apocrypha),and Catholics are not allowed
	to know that they will surely go to heaven,or?? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			with that. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	So but for justification you've to take sacraments. and the Obelisk is the male sex organ of Baal,even ] has it (Baphomet is worshiped by masons in the highest degrees (30°-33°)lower masons don't have heared of that name).
	In my catholic bible I didn't find Acts 8.37... you may have an other version and you should read the whole chapter of Matthew 5
	If Chick is lying.You should ask William Schnoebelen,he had studied R.C.C. doctrine to become a priest,before he studied spiritism,became a witch and went to satanism.Schnoebelen is a Christian now,telling people about Jesus.
	(this information may make catholics angry.)

			== ]: Voting now open! ==
	I know that Jesus says,love your enemies and that doesn't mean we've to agree with every religion,we've to warn the people,that they've to come out of false religion and believe Jesus if we don't warn them they'll will never hear the gospel and if they don't
	hear it and won't receive Jesus Christ they'll be cast into the lake of fire....^^^

			{{Ivmbox\|Hello, Farsight001. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
	.... and I gave my catholic bible away,but I still know some books of the Apocrypha:Macabee 1; Macabee 2;Tobias;Jesus Sirach...
	my catholic bible is MT "Mehrheitstext"(old catholic bible) and one more thing;you know her(this is my photo,taken of my catholic song book)],it's the catholic virgin Mary (queen of heaven) and her son Jesus(think so!)...
	what's behind the queen of heaven,now we take a look at Jeremiah 7:18 "The children gather wood,and the fathers kindle the fire,and the women knead their dough,to make cakes to the <u>Queen of Heaven</u>,and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods,that they may provoke me to anger."
	this is Semiramis and Tammuz...

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	...how could I accept a religion that hides (I will say that hard)paganism with christianity and share the alter (Ecumenic movement) with other gods etc. ...
	and before kill and hate in God's name like Inquisitions,Crusades...

			If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
	...do you think I swallow everything that Chick says without looking for proofs,the verses he quotes are right...
			\|Scale of justice 2.svg\|imagesize=40px}}
	...I know a catholic priest in a country(he already died),some people I know went to the priest,but the priest didn't have a bible he used a pendulum to get information,he was very accurate...
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/31&oldid=750614956 -->

	^^^ Love means not to accept everything but instead warn them.
	Which father is better:A father who directs his child warns and guides him....
	... or a father who agrees with everything that the child does and allows him everything.

	If you believe that Jesus Christ would send a saved person into pugatory,you're deceived.

			== ArbCom 2017 election voter message ==
	He only sends unsaved persons into purgatory,pugartory is hell.

			{{Ivmbox\|Hello, Farsight001. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
	I don't hate catholics,their doctrines are wrong,the catholics have been deceived,I warn them and want them to get saved.

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	Hello, purgatory is hell...
	first of all,after a man dies there is only judgement (Hebrews 9:27)
	then read Revalation 20:11-15,they're judged according to their work,but whosoever was not found written in the book of life is cast into the lake of fire.
	Nobody of those who are in the Great White Throne judgement will be found in the book of life.
	All born-again Christians are in heaven,they were in the first resurrection (rapture) (Revalation 20:6)
	They were cleansed by the blood of the lamb(Jesus Christ) read John 3:16 and Isaiah Chapter 53.
	There's no purification after death.
	We have to repent (turn away from sin) see Acts 17:30
	only in this world <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
	==New Consensus sought on lead sentence==
			\|Scale of justice 2.svg\|imagesize=40px}}
	Please come give us your opinion by voting here , Thanks! ] ] <sup> ]</sup> 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/04&oldid=813406758 -->

	:Farsight, thank you for coming to vote on article name. I supported sentence number two because it seems to be the only way to eliminate endless debate. The sentence makes no claims and both names reside side by side. The facts relating to which name is more official and common are then found in the note. No facts are omitted. We have to consider that most Readers to the page will not care what the name of the Church is -they are coming to find out something about the Church's beliefs or history. If they do care about the name, it is easy enough for them to notice the note next to Catholic Church! I realize that Soidi has not been the most amicable person to deal with here, but please know that Soidi was not the only person to have concerns over the lead sentence. ] <sup> ]</sup> 18:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

	:Hello again, if I can try your patience a bit more- I am conducting now a new vote here but this is on whether or not you think the sources support the article text in note 1 which follows Catholic Church in the lead sentence. Soidi has challenged that my sources do not support the text. Please come give me your opinion so I can have consensus either one way or the other so we can move forward. ] <sup> ]</sup> 03:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
	==One last vote please==
	Hi, Xandar conducted a new discussion on the use of "official" our original sentence going into FAC that survived Peer Review and several months of mutliple editors. I have agreed not to vote on this one but to agree to whatever consensus of editors decides. Can you please come back for one more vote here: . Thanks for you help in deciding the matter once and for all. ] <sup> ]</sup> 15:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

	== Reverting edits ==

	Just a comment regarding reverting edits by others; watch out for multiple edits by the same user. You managed to revert the second edit by ] in article ] but missed the prior edit. I have reverted that as well. I know how easy it is to not notice the prior edits. I find myself doing it as well. But unfortunately, that is the way a lot of bad edits get missed and remain in the article for extended periods of time. Thanks for taking the time to try to keep the article clean. It is sure a never ending job. ] <sup>(])</sup> 04:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

	== Protestantism ==

	I had to revert your edit to ], it is NOT a denomination. ] is but one small part of Protestantism and it is made up of many different denominations. Calling Protestantism a denomination would be similar to calling all cars built in the United States coupes. Please that the time to read the following articles ], ] and ] ] <sup>(])</sup> 07:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
	:It appears that wikipedia is using a vastly different definition of "denomination" than I am used to, which I find interesting because wikipedia it typically supposed to use the definitions found in the wiktionary, which are quite similar to what I understood denomination to mean and which certainly would classify protestantism as such.] (]) 08:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
	::I guess it depends on how you read the <s>Misplaced Pages</s> Wiktionary definition ''A class, or society of individuals, called by the same name; a sect; as, a denomination of Christians.'' The problem is that protestants are not called by the same name, they are known as Lutherans, Babtists etc. and even these denomination familes are further broken down into individual denominations. Based on your edit history, I might guess that you have a Catholic background. The Catholic Church (or Roman Catholic as most protestants would refer to is as) is very unique in terms of christian denominations. It has remained as a single denomination (for the most part) with papal authority based in Rome. The protestant denominations on the other hand, have become very fragmented. ] <sup>(])</sup> 09:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
	:::But becoming fragmented does not make it not a denomination. Simply because there are smaller groups within the bigger group does not mean the bigger group cannot itself be a denomination. "A class, or society of individuals, called by the same name" is exactly what protestants are. Though that is not quite the definition from wiktionary that I would be using. But this is of little matter. Even if it were right for wikipedia to call protestantism a denomination, I've been lurking around, and there's literally hundreds of articles in which this correction would need to be made, as well as in more than a few templates as well. Frankly, that's just too much work.] (]) 10:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
	::::I would agree that fragmentation itself does not make a denomination, but as you said, Misplaced Pages does use a slightly ''(actually you said vastly)'' different definition (but one I personally believe does not conflict with the Wiktionary version, but does expand it into a bit more detail ''"A Christian denomination is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and doctrine within Christianity"'' (I am sorry, but I had a confusing typo in my 1st reply which I have struck out and edited) Which Wiktionary definition would you be using, if not the one I posted above? ] <sup>(])</sup> 11:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

	==Criticism etc.==
	As you have correctly pointed out, the author in question is a poor reference. How can he come up with a new figure after 400 years? His technique for doing so has not been revealed. As a historian, if scholarly, he might be permitted to come up with a new analysis of the facts but not to invent new ones without some revealed methodology.

	I have requested a formal comment (RFC). These take forever. I have one in from the end of November that hasn't yet been answered, same category (history). Had to renew it once. We can ask for a "second opinion," which is supposed to be reserved for one-on-one arguments, but we can bend the rules. These are "quick and dirty" and we might not get anyone who is as scholarly as any of '''us''', nevermind an expert! So it is a risk, but at least it is quick!

	Or we can try mediation, but we would probably be turned down having not exhausted "all other" avenues. Ironically, this would be quicker than the RFC!

	Yet another way, is to get him on a three reversion, alternating between you and I. This has about a 50% chance of working, but we might be affected as well! :)

	Very noticeably that for an article which is critical of the Catholic church, '''no''' other editor is supporting him, which means they agree with us but don't want to say so because they generally dislike the Church!

	What do you think is the best way to handle him. He will not be persuaded by us no matter what we say.

	Thanks for leading this argument! ] (]) 22:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
	==RFM==
	I began a Request for Mediation here and listed you as a party. Please sign your name here to agree to participate. Thanks. ] <sup> ]</sup> 06:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

	==Request for Mediation==
	(You're a popular guy! :)

	A ] has been filed with the ] that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at ], and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to ]. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, ] (]) 12:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
	:Hello Farsight - Please could you go to the mediation page and state whether or not you agree to the mediation? We're just waiting for you now. Regards, ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 21:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


	==Request for mediation accepted==
	{\| class="messagebox" style="width:90%"
	\|-
	\|]
	\|A ] to which you were are a party has been ].<br>You can find more information on the case subpage, ].</center><br>
	::''For the Mediation Committee,'' ''']''' 06:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
	\|}
	<small><center>This message delivered by ], an automated bot account ] by the ] to perform case management.<br>If you have questions about this bot, please ].</small></center>

	==Mediation for Criticism of the RCC==
	Mediation has begun for the case ]. Please place ] on your watchlist and make a brief statement there (on the talk page) to acknowledge this. If you wish to make a very brief statement about the case itself, you may do so at the same time. Thanks much! ]<sup>]</sup> 13:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
	==]==
	Hi Farsight, I have made a motion to close the mediation for reasons described here . Please come and post either your agreement or disagreement at the same link. Thanks. ] <sup> ]</sup> 17:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
	==Voting==
	Farsight, we are voting at mediation on the name of the Church here . Are you OK with changing the article name to Catholic Church and having a lead sentence that states "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church"? Please cast your vote so we can either find consensus or not for this suggestion. Thanks.
	==RCC mediation==
	A draft of the note under mediation is up for comments here . Thanks, ] <sup> ]</sup> 11:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
	==RCC Mediation==
	Your input is needed here to decide on one of three options. Thanks, ] <sup> ]</sup> 03:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
	==RCC mediation==
	Sorry to bother you again, we now have an option 4 to consider since no one could agree on 1,2 or 3. Can you please come vote again? Thanks, ] <sup> ]</sup> 18:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
	==] mediation outcome==
	Hi, you are receiving this message because you were an original party to the mediation process regarding the Catholic Church name issue. The mediation outcome has been summarized and moved to the Catholic Church talk page here . Please feel free to come join our discussion of the outcome taking place now before making the actual changes in the article. Thanks for your help and kind cooperation toward a mutually agreeable solution. ] <sup> ]</sup> 14:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

	== Jesus ==

	Please don't revert or change edits that you haven't discussed. Thanks. ] (]) 16:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
	:Discussion is a very healthy part of the content dispute resolution process. But deleting large portions of sourced text from articles is a form of vandalism, so restoring the content is perfectly fine. Please ignore the "false" warning issued by Noloop above. -] </sup>]] 22:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

	== Unauthorized removal of material ==

	I see that Farsight001 seems to view this as his own personal page.
	I raised issues under discussion, and put a very short item in controveries relating to the role of the Jesuits in the Inquisition. Remember, we are talking about an event covering hundreds of years with millions of innocent people killed, by the most cruel ways the human mind has ever conceived. It is totally unacceptable for Farsight001 to repeatedly remove this material. If it is done again, I will request mediation and also for Farsight001 to be barred from this page. From the above he has a long history of presumptuous intervention, without any discussion, and the result has been this page has turned into a Jesuit propaganda site instead of an accurate representation of history. /AD ] (]) 12:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)/
	:This IS my own personal page. You see at the top where it says "User talk:Farsight001"? That means it's my page. You're talking about the Jesuit page, on which I did not "repeatedly" remove information. A long history? Riiiiight...] (]) 14:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

	== Torquemada ==

	The citation you removed (Catholic Encyclopedia) states on its Torquemada page that "Most historians hold with the Protestant Peschel (Das Zeitalter der Entdeckungen, Stuttgart, 1877, pp. 119 sq.) that the number of persons burnt from 1481 to 1504, when Isabella died, was about 2000. Whether Torquemada's ways of ferreting out and punishing heretics were justifiable is a matter that has to be decided not only by comparison with the penal standard of the fifteenth century, but also, and chiefly, by an inquiry into their necessity for the preservation of Christian Spain." What is your objection to citing this encyclopedia? --] (]) 07:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

	:Obviously I don't need your approval to edit this article. The later edit addressed all the points you raised - the figure 2000 as the lowest generally accepted, the word "jurisdiction" which you didn't like, etc etc. By changing the edit, taking into account your comments, I have kept to the wikipedia discussion requirements, surely? --] (]) 15:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

	== Wiki Rules ==
	'''You''' are the one disrupting my edits on the article about Jesus. As for rules, the Jews accused Jesus of breaking the law for healing the sick on the Sabbath. You mentioned something about rules in the Bible. Which scripture verses are you referring to? I am not Jewish; was never Jewish. So the Jewish laws do not apply to me. I am not a government worker; so your rules do not apply to me either. ] (]) 23:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

	==an FYI==
	I understand completely why you deleted the section at talk:Jesus that contained off-topic remarks, but there is another way of handling those situations that seems to be preferred to outright deletion. I restored the section so that it is available on the record and will appear in the archive, but added a "tophat" to it which keeps it from sight of the casual reader. This is often used in article talkpages which are prone to rants and non-constructive commentaries. It seems to be an acceptable and useful compromise between "transparency" and our need to keep the talkpages focused on productive discussions. Happy editing, ] <font color ="green">]</font > 06:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

	== User Account: Ronewirl ==
	You threatened to close my account. God gave everyone a free will. We as Christian believers do not make threats. But if you feel convicted in doing so, then all means, go ahead and close the account. If you are right, then you will be fruitful, BUT, if you are wrong, then that will be your responsibility. Not mine. ] (]) 19:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

	== Removing warnings ==

	I don't think you realise that our talk page guidelines say "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and anonymous users.". ] (]) 10:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

	== Sorry you were attacked on CC page. Don't despair! ==

	Sorry to see that you fell victim to one of PMAnderson's off-topic rantings. S/he obviously didn't bother to see whose comments he was addressing. I put another warning on his ]. Don't let it discourage you from making edits and comments! If you see an attack against you or another, address it so editors don't get away with improper attacks and intimidation. Stay strong!--] (]) 01:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
	:if you perceive an attack, do let me know. ] <small>]</small> 13:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
	== Why telling people to shut up and stop discussing is against the very meaning of collaboration ==
	It is unacceptable to tell opposing editors to please shut up as you did . As there are much more sides to this discussion. And the major ones genuniely need to be addressed. Telling people who are not Roman Catholic and yet have grievences with calling the RCC that the exclusive Catholic Church and or the renaming of the one and only Catholic church to be exclusive to them on a secular encyclopedia is going to cause disagreement. Telling people to please shut up is no way to respectfully address their grievences nor address their actual points of disgreement. Shutting people down and silencing them are tactics that tyrants and cults use. Misplaced Pages is not a cult and should do everything it can to not allow itself to become one. As such it must address every valid point. ] (]) 17:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

	== Request for Arbitration ==

	You are a party in a request for an Arbitration: ] ] 11:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

	== ANI ==
	I've started an ANI thread about this ]. ] 11:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

	== Note at Catholic Church ==

	I have removed the text you added as a violation of ] and ]. I reviewed the sources cited in the following material, and they seem to be primary sources. A reader could not know whether those sources were hand-picked to back up the claim being made. As such, a reliable secondary source is required backing up the fact that the church prefers to call itself a certain name in its own documents. Please re-add the text once you have an accompanying source.

	As an aside, please stop edit-warring and discuss the issues. Further edit-warring on that page may result in a block. --] ] 21:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
	: Actually, I read the Talk page and accompanying materials for quite a while. My apologies if I missed something, but I still would like to see the edit warring cease. Additionally, a secondary source is still needed. --] ] 21:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

	== Flood geology ==

	Hi could you carefully explain your rationale for the complete rollback you did on that article. Most of these were stylistic changes for the better, plus a change of the logic. Flood geology is not just a religious belief, it is an attempt to justify the belief by means of geology. That needs to be explained in the intro. Thanks ] (]) 11:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

	== Hills and the Textus Receptus ==

	I have reverted your reversion - I hope you don't mind. The references to Hills work do need to be cited to his book on the defence of the King James Version, but though this is readily availble on the internet, the page numbers are not - so I will need to find it in a library to complete the job. But if you have a copy, feel free to add the cites; and indeed to improve and correct what I have said. ] (]) 10:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
	==Vote Re CC origins and historians differing POV's==
	Hello Farsight, sorry to bother you but we are having a vote on the Catholic Church page regarding whether or not to include the dispute among historians regarding the Church origins. Can you please come an give us your vote so we can come to consensus? Vote is taking place here Thanks! ] <sup> ]</sup> 01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
	==Catholic Church==
	Hi Farsight, we are discussing the sex abuse paragraph here . I am trying to get some past editors to come to the discussion so we can discover what others think. Thanks, ] <sup> ]</sup> 19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:39, 20 November 2023

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Farsight001 has not edited Misplaced Pages since 16 January 2017. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Look far away; not back

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Colin Patterson Reference

On what basis do you have the right to decide that my reference is "not a valid external source"? It's pertinent to the subject matter. Stop censoring the content to favor your personal viewpoints. Kanbei85 (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85

First of all, if the outside references "must be directly about the subject", then please explain how the reference to ARN, which you didn't touch, has anything to do with the subject? Why can the article discuss side issues (like the quote), but then references cannot?

Furthermore, why is Access Research Network deemed "acceptable" while creation.com is not? Why can the creationism page be full of references to the most well-known atheist website on the web, Talk Origins? What you're propagating is nothing more than a double standard. If your concern was merely for alphabetization, then rather than deleting the reference, how about putting it in the correct order? Stop putting up a smokescreen and admit you're censoring me- or correct what you did. Kanbei85 (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85

administrators' noticeboard/incidents: Jesus page

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Let's hope we can finally reach consensus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Catholic Church

I see that you are well-versed in edit warring and personal attacks, so I will make this very clear to you. I am replacing the edit that I made and asking for consensus. I am warning you: do not remove my contributions until consensus is reached, or I will have to add a few more warnings to the dozens already present on this page. Go with God. ~LL~ (talk) (requests) 05:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Catholic Church. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. I am very bold in my editing, I reverted your edit because it was not constructive, and I started a voting process on the talk page. I am familiar with Misplaced Pages policy and I am a trusted user with two permissions to show for it. I will ask you this once as politely as possible: do not start an edit war with me. ~LL~ (talk) (requests) 05:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Fake warnings from people unfamiliar with wikipedia policy do not scare me. You can see the dozens of them above. The next step they always go for is to report me to someone and then THEY get blocked because they're the ones violating policy, just as you are. Check thyself before thy wreck thyself.Farsight001 (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

By 'scientific consensus' you mean your opinion?

Is this what usually happens? I join wikipeida and then I have you following me around deleting my edits on the grounds of supposed 'scientific consensus' even though I've cited scholarly sources. You're claiming 'scientific consensus' without demonstrating what that consensus is - you're just claiming it for yourself. In which case isn't what you mean by scientific consensus just short hand for your view?

You just cost me six thousand dollars (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @You just cost me six thousand dollars: The source you cited was Eric Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened," which rejects mainstream science's understanding of the universe. You cannot seriously pretend that Lerner alone is the totality of scientific consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

What I'm saying is clear - that Farsight is deleting edits with reference to a supposed 'scientific consensus' without making reference to what that consensus is. He's claiming the mantle of defender of the scientific consensus without having any intention of setting out what that consensus is. Is this how wikipedia usually works?

I'm not pretending Lerner alone is the totality scientific consensus. I'll add more sources to demonstrate there's other opinions besides his. But I can guess what will happen - you'll just change the goalposts to find another reason to object to any reference to the age of voids in the article, right?

You just cost me six thousand dollars (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean you open a new thread at Talk:Big Bang, stating "At the moment this is a heavily biased article about a scientific theory. The Big Bang is a theory only". That's enough to get any sensible editor alarmed. Any editor who then takes a look at your edit-history at Void (astronomy), sees that your very first edit there was reversed. Getting curious, one sees that you're using this article as a WP:COATRACK for 'anti-scientific' "arguments." Supercluster? Idem dito. And then you come complaining here because we don't buy this kind of thing. So, this statement above,

"You're claiming 'scientific consensus' without demonstrating what that consensus is - you're just claiming it for yourself. In which case isn't what you mean by scientific consensus just short hand for your view?"

is cheap rhetorics, as you know yourself. Please familiarize yourself with basic Wiki-policies, and don't use it as an faith-propaganda bulletin board. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Good luck

with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eodcarl (talk • contribs) 06:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Farsight001. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Farsight001. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Categories: