Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:07, 29 November 2006

This user page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you might try contacting the user in question or seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/OpenNote is deprecated. Please see User:MediationBot/Opened message instead.

Archive 1

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello Homestarmy, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

24.199.67.217

Thanks for "following" him around and getting rid of his nonsense. --MessengerAtLWU 18:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...nonsense. Just like reading the bible literally.

You erased everything on the WOTM article and replaced it with profanity (how could I possibly take you seriously after that?), then proceeded to write on the articles for Cameron and Comfort that they were deluded and "religious imperialists" (in essence comparing them to the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition!). You can have that belief, but it is not at all appropriate for Misplaced Pages articles; start your own Web site for that. You must keep a neutral point-of-view in your editing. Also, sign your posts in talk pages with the signature button above the editing window. --MessengerAtLWU 19:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you never addressed the issue of literal interpretation of the Bible. Also, I don't think it's "profanity" to say that people who reject the theory of evolution are deluded. In fact, I think it's profoundly ironic that people who reject such basic scientific truths use technology (like the internet) to spread their misguided beliefs. --24.199.67.217 02:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, people believe that we literally evolved from protocells a bazillion mamillion years ago or something, yet I have refrained from making ad hominim attacks on evolutionists so far on the talk pages of Evolution and Age of the Earth. I think a little quid pro quo would be not too innapropriate :/. Homestarmy 02:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry; I'm sure you are a very nice person. But if you really truly believe that "Science has brought on corruption of society," as it says on your userpage, isn't it a bit hypocritical to use the internet and wikipedia? --24.199.67.217 04:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that thing? Hmm, Quizfarm gave me that text automatically, I guess I should fix that rofl. Homestarmy 17:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't address it because it isn't relevant. The issue is not "Is the Bible valid?" (although I would like to go into that with you at another time and place), but the issue is "Is what you have been doing considered vandalism of Misplaced Pages?" Please look at this or thisand try to tell me that what you posted there (or at least what was posted at the computer/IP address you are using) is not vandalism.

Am I crazy?

This is twice now that I've found myself in dispute with people who feel dictionary definitions (half-sibling, entombment) are OR and POV. Am I crazy, or does logic suddenly violate NPOV? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTCF 20:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the dictionary isn't fundamentalist enough for fundamentalist english speakers.... :D Homestarmy 21:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I love your sense of humor. I think you can tell that I've been having a rather bad weekend. "Fundamentalist English speakers." This reminds me of Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass: "'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." Never mind the dictionary. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTCF 21:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, I saw the you premoted DNA Resequencer (Stargate) to a good article. I have been trying to get that on the list for weeks. Thanks. Also, do you think it's good enough to be a featured article? Tobyk777 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Pics

There aren't any more pics because there are no more pics. those are the only 2 on the net. Tobyk777 23:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That might work, except i dont know how to take frames from a DVD and put them on a hard drive. Tobyk777 00:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The people that take fair use screenshots actualy upload them off the video footage. I never thought of taking a pic with a camrea off a TV. Would that seriously work? Tobyk777 23:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll try that. Tobyk777 23:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Not willing to stand behind your own proposals

You offered a solution, I put it in the article, then you let someone else revert without a word of protest, just as if you had never made the proposal at all. We discuss things all day, but it means nothing as whatever you finally agree with is not something you are willing to stand behind. Drogo Underburrow 01:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

But the thing is, I was and still am of the opinion that "emtomb" is a compleatly correct word to use. but since you seemed to dislike it vehemently, I suggested a synonimous series of words, which meant exactly the same thing. As long as the article continues to mean "buried in a tomb", it is correct as far as im concerned. If somebody reverts it to "buried in a tomb", I will do nothing. if somebody reverts it to simply "buried", I will most likely qualify it with "buried in a tomb" rather than "entomb", to avoid this dispute. I just plain don't care that much when both "entomb" and "buried in a tomb" mean the exact same thing. Homestarmy 01:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 2+2=4, but some people feel that "=" is OR and "4" is POV. Check these comments in addition to Drogo's remarks at Talk:Jesus. RfC? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTCF 03:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why an RfC is needed for such a tiny thing, we never used one even for our months long debate about the Jesus Myth, and that one probably could of been justified because of the undue weight thing :/. Homestarmy 12:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. There may be another way to deal with this. Jim62sch has requested that the page be locked. Frankly, the double blue stuff has me frazzled. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTCF 13:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at the GAC, but I'm beginning to think that my time would be better spent at the CKB. Assuming a crusade doesn't break out or something. (Rolls eyes). Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTCF 13:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Not many people seem interested in the CKB :/. But im about set to work on Chicago for the GAC, that can't be too frazzling :). Who knows, one of these days Christianity might show up on the collaboration nominations, won't that be interesting.... Homestarmy 13:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cubs or White Sox? Some people take their baseball very seriously. Almost religiously. ;)

If I don't take a Wikibreak, I'll probably go back to doing what I did before Scifiintel drew me to the Jesus page: Work on articles about country music and Macintosh software. I'm particularly proud of my work at The Kentucky Headhunters. No edit wars there. No edits at all since December 31, 2005. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTCF 13:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikibreak over ;) Homestarmy, I was talking about an article RfC on Jesus rather than a user RfC against Drogo. It looks like we might be ready to move forward on Talk:Jesus—assuming you don't mind another vote. Grigory Deepdelver 17:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well what's to vote on, despite the issue Oub is making out of his suggestion, at pure face value, his change isn't really very major and I don't see anything really wrong or bad about it. And the entomb thing is pretty much done, "buried in a tomb" is fine. Homestarmy 19:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The vote is to move from full protection to semiprotection. Also, I think that we may still have a problems with suspicion and lack of communication, but who knows? I may be wrong. Check User:Archola/Sanity to see where I stand on all this. Grigory Deepdelver 19:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should of been protected at all in the first place really, it wasn't that big a deal. Homestarmy 19:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but when somebody dropped that "No Criticism Allowed" rheorical napalm it did become a big deal. Not to mention that the Two Color Data website (not their real name, but you know who I mean) has had me freaked out since they added the Jesus article to their watchlist. This really started with the sockpuppet allegations at Christianity in February, but somebody just can't seem to let it go. Scary stuff. Grigory Deepdelver 19:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken

Pope Pius XII

Thanks for reviewing this article! After I get finished with my midterms this week I am going to go through some books I checked out on Pius, particularly to make sure that the post-war section is complete. After that, unless the peer review turns up serious problems, I may try taking a pass at a FA nom. savidan 19:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus peer review

It appears to be over. Not too many comments. Okay, besides you and me, there was one comment.

Ah, well. We have enough to do as it is. Arch O. La 15:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph#Version_5.0

Feedback please. - RoyBoy 04:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Feedback please for Talk:Abortion/First_paragraph#Version_5.2, key difference is mention of non-viability. - RoyBoy 15:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you object if I removed "usually" from 5.2? As far as I know prior to 20 weeks is universally "considered non-viable". - RoyBoy 15:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, could you add in there who it is that considers it that way, such as "considered non-viable by the medical profession" or something like that? Homestarmy 17:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

When in Rome

Since you're having so much fun editing Chicago for the Good Article Collaberation, I thought I'd let you know that it looks like either Rome or Belgrade will be the next week's Article Improvement Drive. Unless you're getting tired of editing city articles. Arch O. La 15:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the Article Improvement Drive has plenty of editors, but the GACOTW needs help lol. Homestarmy 16:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I nominated Jesus for the AID. It looks like Chicago is failing its FAC. Maybe someone should nominate Chicago for the AID? Arch O. La 13:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, im sorry, but Chicago just plain doesn't have very many references :/. And because of the extensive nature of the article, I would say a rather large plethora would be nice, especially of the book variety, similar to the kind of references in Berlin. Even with like 6 people working on the GAC, I don't know if we could really of helped that article :/. Im kinda hoping that one school one will win though, it looks super easy to finish it off if the references are all in order. Homestarmy 01:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Say, how do you check edit/article ratios anyway?

I don't know anymore. There's a tool on the German Misplaced Pages, but It's no longer being updated. I haven't been able to get the other tools to work. BTW, your Edits/page (avg) was 6.50 at last count. Arch O. La 03:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on my RfA!

truth

I honestly don't know how being born again equals complete proof of all Christian doctrine, maybe you can explain to me what being born again actual means, and why it is such an absolute event. Truth is something none of us will ever know completely, unless of course there is some event called "being born again" which ultimately proves things. As I was saying, applying this philosophy (that nothing is certain) to everyday life is dangerous, because there certainly is knowledge which can be used to predict future events and guide us through our lives. Currently, the scientific method is the best method for determining what is true, and what is not true with certainty, because it predicts the future more accurately than any other method of reasoning. It allows us to create great things and make correct decisions. It is, however, neither a religion nor a philosophy, and it is not designed to handle moral issues. When I talk about truth here, I am not talking about absolute truth, because no one but God "if he exists" could know it. The word fact, however, looses all meaning if it is applied to this notion of absolute truth; therefore, facts are used to label things which are true in the traditional sense. If I see a yellow car, it is a fact that the yellow car exists. I'm not going to analyze it absolutely and say,.. well,.. My senses are imperfect and it might not really be a yellow car. That will lead to insanity and probably end up making me travel around wikipedia arguing young earth ideas. My main concern was with scorpionmans statement that "Science has never proven anything to be fact!". No other method for predicting future events has proven to be as accurate as the scientific method. I never said it is perfect, but it is the best method we have for understanding truth within the limits of human understanding.--146.244.137.178 18:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think what the problem here is that we do not see traditional truth in the same light. When I think of truth, I don't think of the nearest collage's biology department, im thinking of what is right and what is wrong. But science isn't supposed to be deal with what is right and what is wrong, it is the metholodigy by which man wants to discover the principles of the world and of reality. I think Scorpionman might be confusing exactly what science is trying to do however, science isn't trying to prove anything as a fact, rather, people are trying to use its principles to understand the world around them, whether we're absolutly right about it or not doesn't matter, it shouldn't be an issue. I don't need to know what's behind the quarks of gasoline molecules to know that if I put that stuff in my car its going to get me to get from point A to point B in a relatively efficient manner, and in truth, nobody really knows compleatly what is going on behind those quarks, and even if scientific reaserch figures it out, then we have to ask "What's behind that? And that? And that? We don't know!". So really, neither science nor the scientific method can determine ultimate truth....because it doesn't need to, nor was it supposed to. It's like trying to apply the theory of relativity to ethics, the speed of light has nothing to do with people's conscience.

Now on the born again thing, im glad you asked :). See here's the deal, normally when people want to know when something is right or wrong, people will, you know, test it, right? Well Jesus did propose a sort of test in a way. Because He said that "whosoever believeth in men will be granted eternal life" and that "You must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven", both of them must follow from the other, by faith in Him, Jesus says that you will recieve eternal life, and since you also have to be born again, logically, your faith must make you become born again. Since it has to be faith in Jesus, you can't, for example, try to make up a Jesus in your own mind, such as one who thinks that all things are relative or whatever, and then try to believe in that Jesus, it'd be like trying to believe in nothing at all. By believing in Jesus exactly as Jesus really is, He promises eternal life, and as I said earlier, that means you'll be born again. Now, being born again isn't that complicated, basically, like Jesus said, you don't go into your mother's womb and come out again, your born again of the Spirit, basically, your old self dies away so to speak. You'll be a new person mentally speaking, I mean, it's not something you can't notice or anything, you won't be the same person as you were before anymore. Of course, simply trying to get eternal salvation as a test is probably a bad way to go about it because without an understanding of why we must be born again I don't see how you could possibly really have total faith in Jesus, but at the end its all the same, the claims of Jesus are proved true. Since His claims are true, and He quoted from like the first chapter or something or Genesis, that proves evolution is a lie since He validated Genesis, and it proves the rest of the Torah since that was after all what the first 5 books were known as back then, and well, everything basically falls into place from there. Homestarmy 22:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Montheism

I know of no Mormon group that would clam to be henotheistic. I went a read the article on WIKI (I think it may need some editing; it claims Christians are Heno and Mormons, but does not give any reference). To rightfully be called henotheistic one must have a pantheon of gods to choose from and then one chooses to worshp a single god within the pantheon. Although LDS have speculated that there may be other gods in the universe, there is not a pantheon of gods to worship. There is one God and no other.

In my entire life I have never considered myself anything but monotheistic. For LDS, there is no choice of who to worship because there is only one God. I would ask you to study more about henotheism before leveling that claim again. Yes, I am aware of what others might claim Mormons to be, but I always like to hear it straight from the horses mouth. To find out how to build a watch, one does not go to the butcher. The butcher might have some ideas, but he does not know how to build a watch. When you want to know what a LDS believes, ask. It saves times, misinformation (generally) and communication has never harmed anyone. Cheers. Storm Rider 06:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing of it is though, I met a mormon on some other Wiki who revealed that there's some sort of other split in the church that is LDS but not "Mormon" whatever that means, so quite honestly, I don't know what Mormonism is anymore. I sort of suspected that there probably wasn't much chance that alot of Mormons were actually henotheistic, but that's why I said in my comment that I merely think that there was some group of Mormonism that was henotheistic, I don't know which one and to a point, I almost don't care. I always assumed that henotheism simply meant worshipping one God, yet giving acknowladgement to the existance of others, what would be the proper term for that then? Homestarmy 12:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As you seem, I am still trying to get my arms around some definitions. The definition of henotheism does seem to be "flexible" depending upon which group is using the term and their objective. I believe that henotheism is more than just acknowledging the possible existence of other gods, but it is "knowing" them such as in Hinduism. They know the names, attributes, etc of their gods and they individually choose which god they will worship.

The Fundamentalist groups can get a little out there, but I am not aware of them have a belief system that would allow them to worship other gods. I do believe that many Mormons, as many Christians, do not understand the Godhead/Trinity. Peace. Storm Rider 21:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Henotheism article seems fairly compleate on the subject, the intro seems to lean towareds the definition im thinking of but there are apparently some subdivisions and a section on Hinduism, so I dunno what that is all about. Homestarmy 12:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Bible at WikiKnowledge

I have set up my own wiki, and I have just uploaded a Public Domain version of Genesis. However the page is extremely long and needs to be split up into smaller pages. This is not something I would be able to do as I have little interest or knowledge on the subject but perhaps you might be interested in having a look at it. http://www.gmcfoley.com/index.php?title=Bible/Genesis. I also have Public Domain versions of the other books which I would be happy to upload if someone was interested in formatting them. I should also point out that my entire wiki is Public Domain also. Please let me know if you are interested. Thanks, Gerard Foley 03:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

Homestarmy, would you be willing to keep an eye on "Christianity"? Several editors are trying to make the intro hedge on whether or not it's monotheism. —Aiden 06:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been there through most of this argument already heh. I really do think KVs version is pretty acceptable, I mean, it still indicates that to most people it is clearly monotheistic. Homestarmy 12:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Scary indeed, but I guess some people just don't get the concept of tri-unity. Some nonchristians may see us as tritheists, but in fact the only Christians who professed tritheism rather than trinitarianism were denounced as heretics. Even Mormons profess monotheism, three persons in one God, regardless of what even some other Christians say. To say what Christians believe is different from what we profess is not far from calling us deluded or liars. So, yes, it is scary. Arch O. La 18:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm... the anon simply removed half a reference and left open tags in the article. —Aiden 01:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought he just put in the words "Jewish sect". Homestarmy 01:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes: A New Proposal

Hey, I've noticed that you've been active on the Userbox deletion page, either strongly FOR or AGAINST the use of the new T2 for deleting userboxes. I have noticed that most of the community is strong in their opinions on this issue; for that reason, I created my own proposal which attempts to create a middle ground for the two groups, and finally get this debate settled once and for all. I welcome your input into the proposal, as well as your (non-binding) vote on the straw poll. Thanks! // True _Sora 01:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Project

Hi, Homes! Can you explain to me how to go about joining the project, how it works and what I would be expected to do if I signed on? --CTSWyneken 17:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the GA project is like most others, all you have to do is sign your name on the participants list, at WP:WGA. There's actually several tasks the Project tries to take on, most of which have to do with, well, good articles :). There's a sweep thing going on to check old GA's from when the project was going to make sure everything still complies with the latest Good article criteria, a WP:GA/D disputes page where people can give input on articles various that somebody thinks people should look at, we can always use more editors on the Nominations page to check the long, long list of articles to see whether any warrent promotion, (Make sure to check the criteria and rules first though), and my favorite, the Good Article collaboration of week, where Good Articles are supposed to be improved upon. I say "Supposed" because we don't actually have really many participants.....but several of the articles we've been doing are extremely close to FA material, their just often missing references in many places. Japan, the current collaboration, is actually a really nice looking article, but there's this odd dispute going on about racist accusations of where Japan got its heritage from, which seems odd to me because the article is very well referenced. Anyway, the project itself doesn't expect members to really do anything we don't want to do, just, you know, whichever part you want to work on you can work on it. Personally, i'd do the collaboration, because the latest articles seem relatively easy to bump up to FA status, but well, im almost the only one who does anything and it's difficult to do it alone :/. Plus, should any of the Christianity related articles become GA's, then we could use the collaboration to get them straight to FA if the collaboration gets more popular.... Homestarmy 18:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No more unmentionable site.

I just noticed that the unmentionable site is down. All that's there now is a directory listing. I'll take your earlier remark as a prophecy that has come to pass ;) Arch O. La 06:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, im not worthy! :D Homestarmy 12:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess not. It's back. Arch O. La 01:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

See, that's why pride is a sin, I could of been caught in a lie! Humility FTW! Homestarmy 01:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Christian views of Jesus

Since you earlier were involved in some discussion on possibly merging this article, would you come to the Talk page and give some feedback to my suggestion that this article be redirected to Christology? --MPerel 18:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorrey

that edit was by accident, I got a error and nothing was changedTjb891

Missing quote

When I tried to follow your link, it took me to a non-accessible site, pay site if you will. That's probably why someone removed it. It certainly would be preferrable if you had a site that was publicly accessible or retrievable from a library.

KV 01:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yea, I just cited it because if you scroll to the bottom there's an except which backs up the information, and that's all it needs. But if its against the Citation policy, I don't mind it being removed, I just keep finding more of them anyway :). Homestarmy 01:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ray Comfort

This may interest you: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity#Ray_Comfort. Arch O. La 04:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Mormons and Evolution

While visiting Storm Rider's talk page, I saw your note. So forgive my eavesdropping, but a recent book might be helpful to you. Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding, by BYU alumni Trent Stephens and Jeffrey Meldrum, with Forrest Peterson. A review of the book by Melvin N. Westwood summarized the findings as follows:

The book's thirteen chapters have an eleven-page bibliography and a few illustrations relating to biological evolution. Here is the main point from each chapter: (1) the universe is billions of years old, follows natural laws, and was created by God for mortal existence; (2) Mormon leaders say leave the theology to theologians and science to scientists; (3) many Mormons think biological evolution false but science and Mormon theology cannot conflict; (4) Mormon leaders' 1909 statement did not reject evolution; (5) science is based on facts; religion on faith; (6) fossil evidence and DNA data support evolution and Neo-Darwinism but some evolution is directed by God; (7) DNA evidence links all life forms, but God created humans' physical and spiritual natures on different time lines; (8) Joseph Smith said God created humanity's spirituality before physicality; (9) organic evolution is the honest result of scientists explaining the evidence; (10) oldest fossil bacteria in rocks are 3.5 million years old; (11) Genesis is compatible with evolution; (12) evolution may be partly random and partly non-random; (13) biological evolution is one step in the process of eternal progression from humans to gods. The book's main point is to present modern biological evolution as established fact and to make Mormon theology compatible with it. In the past, Mormons opposed evolution. The book weaves evolution with Mormon belief that God was once a man and that he evolved into God.

Hope that helps a little, but I suspect the "average" Mormon would tell you that he/she does not believe in evolution. Please note I'm not average in that respect. The Church, however, still affirms the 1909 statement on the subject which did not reject evolution. Best wishes. WBardwin 20:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI: The Restoration Branches are very strong Creationists, so once again, whatever the LDS happens to believe does not apply. --BenMcLean 17:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Leigh Richmond Roose

Thank you for taking the trouble to review the above for "Good article" candidacy (which, incidentally, I neither solicited nor desired). I have posted replies to your queries on the relevant talk page, and copy them here in case you have not added it to your watch list. Mikedash 14:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

The article is, necessarily, based on the information available. I put in as much balance as I could; Roose is described as reckless, for instance, and there's a section on his bad temper. Thre simply aren't that many more criticisms on record, certainly not without going back and doing a match-by-match study of his playing career. There was just a lot more hero worship in those days, I suppose.

As to the specific criticisms, "Roose was renowned as one of the best players in his position in the Edwardian period" is simply true, and note that it is not given as my opinion - "Was one of the best players" - but as reported fact: "Was renowned as...". This usage is justified in the text - cf. his selection to a "World XI". Would it really be POV to apply such judgements to Banks or Yashin, say? "Roose was well qualified to play in goal" is similarly justified, in terms of his height and weight, and the reasons for this, given the footballing style of the period, are explained.

Eccentricity: it's a contentious topic, of course - one man's eccentric is another's beacon of sanity - but, again, I think it is beyond question that Roose was regarded as eccentric, and probably played up to the image. I refer you to the following citations (full bibliographical information for the books can be found in the references to the article):

Nick Hazelwood, In the Way p.46: "Roose's sense of humour, eccentric goalkeeping and extravagent behaviour made him an instant hit with the crowds... one of the great footballing and great goalkeeping characters of his time. His wanderings up and down the pitch, sorties into the crowd, his insistence on playing in the same unwashed kit for Wales, his penchant for a practical joke and his hiring of trains for personal use at Stoke City's expense all made him an amusing and likeable celebrity."

Geraint Jenkins, "Leigh Richmond Roose" in For Club and Country: Welsh Football Greats p.23: "It is one of the commonplaces of sport that a goalkeeper is rather different from the rest of mankind. From the days of William ("Fatty") Foulke, who used to get his retaliation in first by waddling naked into visiting dressing rooms to intimidate opponents and referees to Rene Higuita (El Loco), the eccentric Columbian keeper, goalkeepers have taken pride in being deemed a breed apart. Arguably the most gifted superman of them all was Leigh Richmond Roose, the "prince of goalkeepers" in Edwardian Wales, whose curriculum vitae was a thing of wonder..."

Bob Wilson, You've Got to be Crazy p.44: "The joker in the pack in the early breed of keepers was Dr Leigh Richmond Roose."

Francis Hodgson, Only the Goalkeeper to Beat p.162: "Leigh Roose, the eccentric Welshman who never used to change his goalkeeping shirt..."

Playerhistory.com: "Played the 1910 Scottish Cup semi final for Celtic as an amateur - Celtic lost 1-3 to Clyde and the eccentric goalkeeper shocked fans by racing from his goal to shake the hand of Clyde's third goalscorer!"

Carling.com: "Leigh Richmond Roose, an eccentric Welsh goalkeeper who was an amateur, would hire a train especially to take him to International venues, when he had finished his medical duties. He had an elaborate pre-match ritual of pacing his goalmouth - no one ever knew why!"

Finally, discussion of the number of clean sheets kept by the player - "A remarkable record not least because his team flirted dangerously with relegation in 1901, 1902 and 1904" - does, I concede, require some statistical justification, but I'm happy to provide it; if we look at, say, the record of Portsmouth, the team finishing fourth from bottom of the Premiership this season, one above the relegation places, we see that the team kept only 5 clean sheets in its 38 games, or 13.1%, compared to Roose's record of 27.8% clean sheets at Stoke (http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/teams/Portsmouth.html). Hope this helps deal with your questions.

at the top of your edit will move your text below any graphic. Herostratus 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Pope Pius XII FAC

I nominated Pope Pius XII to be a Featured Article. As you promoted this article to Good Article status some time ago, I thought that you might have some perspective on how the article stacks up against the featured article criteria. You are the only person I know of currently who is (somewhat) familiar with the article without having invested so much time in it as to be biased. I would appreciate your comments at the nomination page linked above, whether or not you choose to join me in supporting the article. savidan 22:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

December 25

I see that you've made several comments at the Talk:25 December page, and I was hoping that you could please add your vote to the straw poll, as there appear to be two users that are bent on not having Jesus mentioned in the article. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 20:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethics in the Bible

Which verses would you sort of like to know? Dan Watts 01:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to know which verses in particular Clinkofist or however its spelled means with the whole "A woman could be stoned for being raped in some circumstances" thing, it sounds a bit odd, I mean I know I kinda lost focus on Leviticus when I first read through it because its a hard, long read, but I just thought I would of noticed something like that. Homestarmy 02:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well in Deuteronomy it (King James Version) says:

Deu 22:23 If a damsel (that is) a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

Deu 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, (being) in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

Deu 22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; (there is) in the damsel no sin (worthy) of death....

(Parenthetical words are interpolated and not in the original language)

It appears that her stoning was predicated upon her silence. Dan Watts 02:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, but the sentence in Ethics in the Bible made it sound like women would be killed for rape in some circumstances, but the first part just says if they lie together, that don't sound like rape to me :/. Homestarmy 03:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like fornication (or possibly adultery for an engaged person), but did you truly expect some even-handed discussion in that forum? Dan Watts 13:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I technically haven't even brought up the issue, I just asked in my edit summary heh. The thing of it is, i've tracked this article for a long time, and quite frankly, its a mess. I think pretty much all of it is OR, I think huge chunks of it are pretty irrelevant, and I was going to write up a huge critique of it but then the article was heavily altered :/. To tell you the truth, im not even sure if this topic even belongs on Misplaced Pages, in a way, it seems almost like a kind of rant. Homestarmy 14:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Bananas

There are multiple sources referenced, both for the history of the domesticated banana, and for the existence of multiple banana species (most of which aren't really very palatable), in the article on bananas.

Domesticated bananas are to wild bananas as corn-on-the-cob is to teosinte - and you might not be aware of this, but the domesticated banana has been bred such that it's incapable of reproducing without human intervention. Wild bananas, conversely, do just fine. DS 17:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The other type of banana the article mentions seems to be saying that its used in cooking, I think the point is that the banana in whatever capacity you care to refer was readily usable by people when it was first found. Homestarmy 17:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Peace Dollar/GA

Hello! I left a note on the Peace Dollar talk page, regarding your comments on its Good Article nomination. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any other questions or concerns. Thanks! --cholmes75 20:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hagee

"I find it hard to believe that the publishers would let his book slide by mis-spelled"

Hmmm, how about a careless, sleepy editor retyping several lines of all-cap text?  :) Kuru 04:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, from what I hear, the publishing process for books is pretty rigorous, that'd be a whole lot of sleepy people not doing their jobs right. Homestarmy 04:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant me. I botched re-typing the titles away from the all-caps format. By the way, the "he said/she said" book they authored appears to be sold as just one book - it's just a flip-over. Take a look at the amazon listing and make the call. ok, sleepy time. Kuru 05:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh That editor, heh, I guess we're all getting kinda sleepy these days eh? Homestarmy 03:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Jesus the Messiah

Thank you for the message. Perhaps I should have phrased my edit summary better. As the article states, "The long-term goal of Jews for Jesus is one of conversion of all Jews to accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah — a position which is usually characterised as Christianity." Islam is completely out of picture here. ←Humus sapiens 07:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Christianity tag

Thanks, for correcting me. Str1977 17:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VI collaboration

I noticed your interest in this, and I REALLY want this thing to be featured, and I think we should be able to work together on this, especially because the people at WP:FF are working on other projects, meaning without you, I'm really on my own on this, and I can't do this alone, as you know. I'm adding some sections so that they match up with FFVIII and FFX, two of the best FF articles. I need your help with rewriting prose, adding material, removing redundancy, and making sure everything, even storyline material, is properly referenced. We need to recruit some more people. Crazyswordsman 22:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. We need to spread the word around, and I can't do it alone, sadly enough. Crazyswordsman 00:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

HKT GA nomination

Could you please be a tad more informative on the H-K-T talk page? I mean, what's specifically wrong with that article, or what is it that is not covered sufficiently? AFAICT all notable facts are already mentioned and I'm not really sure what is it that you mean. Thanks in advance. Halibutt

Talk:Kanclerz

Replied there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Restorationism

The Restorationism article is in terrible shape. Amongst its many problems is a complete lack of citations. Do you have any online resources that you feel might help in a cleanup of that article? Everything from style and form to grammar needs attention; I'm willing to do a chunk of the work in cleanup, but I don't have the source background to do it right. Anything you can direct me towards would be appreciated. Thanks, -Kevin/Last1in 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

I can't begin to tell you how many times I've confused your username with Homeontherange's. Sorry for any frustration my boobheadedness may have caused. FeloniousMonk 18:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't really notice any dispute between us, the closest i've come to interacting with you that I remember is seeing your name keep popping up on the watchlist of the ID article heh. Homestarmy 20:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

P.N.03

Sorry to bother you, but when I checked this article, all I saw was Highway failing it, and there's no entry on the disputes page, why was this article relisted? Homestarmy 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me because the article was back to the GAN process. I have re-checked the article, and all the points were assessed or a comment was given for the rest. IMO, the article is broad enough altough the sections aren't that full ... since WP is a work in progress, the article will grow. As of now, all the articles criteria on WP:WIAGA are met. Lincher 23:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you the same Homestarmy from the Christianity Wikia?

you look like the same guy ... --BenMcLean 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I was asked to come over to there by NSandwich awhile ago, I didn't know you had an account here too :/. Want to come help us over on the Jesus page, i've been hoping we can get it featured for awhile since, you know, the more publicity Jesus gets the more people might get interested in learning who He is, but we just keep running into the weirdest issues :/. We could certainly use more people :).Homestarmy 23:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, good to meetcha again. :) It might be a good idea to link your user pages together with your other user pages so people know that they're talking to the same person on different sites. Also, registering an email address and setting it in the preferences so people can email you can come in handy. --BenMcLean 17:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfulfilled prophecies

I think it is good to include the JW information on that page, although I think that it would be better to put it in a separate section for JWs, perhaps with a note that they are not considered to be Christians by mainstream Christian denominations. BenC7 04:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, what I meant was it might be better to put it in its own section on the same page. I think a person reading the article might just lump them all together and think "Look at those stupid Christians". If the JW stuff was denoted separately it might be easier for people to make the distinction. BenC7 04:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think so, particularly if it was in paragraph form. You had about six short sentences there, which is about the length of some of the other sections. BenC7 04:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It might also be worth you checking out the Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses article, which is currently undergoing revision and is in need of expansion in the "unfulfilled prophecies" section. You seem to have the relevant information. BenC7 09:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a RfC on the Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses talk page. It would be appreciated if you could bring some common sense to the table. BenC7 10:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland Note

Thanks! I intend to ignore it, even though Mantanmoreland has been more than a bit troublesome to me. --CTSWyneken 18:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Article Nom

Is there a discussion page for this kind of article nom? Voting? A way to contest a fail if it is done by a significant contributor? Look at the failed FA nom if you wonder why I ask.

Bob--CTSWyneken 19:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This looked like fun, so I reviewed the article Hebrew language. Would you see if I did everything I was supposed to to promote the thing? --CTSWyneken 21:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... guess I'll have to read that thingie a little more carefully. ;-) Did I get the mechanics right? Someone may want to nominate me again some day for admin and I need some community projects beyond welcome wagon... 8-) --CTSWyneken 01:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

So, would we say this listing, Charlemagne is a bit sparse on references? What I'm trying to get a bead on is where the line is. If this were a journal article, or a college paper, I'd bounce it. On the other hand, most encyclopedias do not reference their sources at all, simply listing the bibliography. I need to find my comfort zone on these. I could see, for example, saying this one is good, solid writing (I've yet to see anything "compelling" here or in any encyclopedia! 8-) ), good coverages, links, images and some bib. It has cats and is of reasonable length. On the other hand, some red links, a cite needed tag or two, etc. I'd be inclined to say "nice work" Please reference more thoroughly, establish articles for the red links or remove them. I could see approving them with such a note or not approving them and telling them to fix and resubmit. What do you think? --CTSWyneken 10:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll just keep at it. If you start to get complaints, let me know! 8-) I'm beginning to sound like my speech judge self on the talk pages of these articles. I've taken to making comments while not promoting or failing a nom. I think I drove the guy at one page crazy with it. --CTSWyneken 17:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandals with wandering ip addresses

Can we add {{sprotect}} to articles that are being heavily vandalised by anon vandals? Do we just put it at the top of the page somewhere? 02:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Well he isn't vandalising his own user talk page, I guess we should just keep trying to talk to him. Homestarmy 02:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I have a hunch he doesn't really want to learn to be a good editor. But maybe I'm wrong.... :-) Antandrus (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Christianity Link

I don't understand the objections to this link. I have nothing to do whatsoever with PBS. It is a free website, it discusses a frontline series done over christianity (4 tapes long) in 1998. Please relook.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

if you click on one of the faces it will display several links

I have tried to find a more worthy "entry" page but that is the only one they provide. I believe the navigator is supposed to click on the faces.

If you are to click on some of the links..

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/

For example, you have access to all of the articles explaining his life, existance, etc.

I have not encountered a single pay advertisement. The website is for those to share the information from the broadcast in 1998. PBS is free anyway and it's directly from their website.

I have used their links to cite sources throughout facebook. Most notably http://en.wikipedia.org/Paul_of_Tarsus#Scholarly_Consensus , the Bishop Irenaeus quote is invaluable, only found from the PBS material.

It is not transcripts. It contains scholary articles written from some of the most informed in the field, it's a WEALTH of information. Reading the articles will unravel many things unknown.

You bring up some good issues and I am concerned with the same things as well. I uncovered the link while doing my own research on Christianity and it provided numerous lectures by scholars about Christian history.

This for instance includes a lecture given by Michael White at Harvard on the controversies surrounding Jesus' tomb. Paul, the earliest writer in the New Testament speaks of no tomb, Jesus simply ascends. The gospel of Mark has Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Salome approach Jesus' tomb to annoint his body, however on they way there they ponder how to roll back the rock covering its enterance. They eventually find out its rolled back already, they enter and a "man" dressed in white tells them Jesus has ascended into heaven.

Matthew however has just Mary and Mary Magdalene visit the tomb, not to annoint the body, because he is the first to insert guards there. This changes the scenario set by the earliest gospel in Mark, and then for Matthew an "angel" comes by and strikes the guards dead, he tells both Marys that jesus has ascended and then they walk into the tomb to check it out for themselves.

Such scholarly incite is imperative for people interested in christianity. I acknowledge that the link you showed me can be seen as "shady" but its goal is simply to give the individual an oppurtunity to buy the old documentary. The navigation is not great, however the website intends for the user to browse through the articles.

Also quite a humorous thing is Bishop Iraenous of 170AD France, he led the movement to classify all Gospels but Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as Gnostic because there were "four corners to the universe and four principle winds". He also thought they were written by Jesus' original disciples and this is not the case as well.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/emergence.html

I would very much like if you could help me find a better "entry" page. I do not want others to be turned off by their offer to sell their documentary however I know of no other link that has access to all of their educational articles.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/

If you go to the above and click 'an overview of the four gospels', they might be able to inform you of certain things.

The first gospel, the gospel of Mark, was revolutionary. I was just readng from this earlier and I'll pull the quote,

Whether as a reponse to the Jewish War (66-70) or to the deaths of the earliest followrs of Jesus, or to the need of a definitive version of Jesus' life, or to objectionable theological trends, the author of the Gospel of Mark recast traditional materials into a dramatic narrative climaxing in Jesus' death. It is not clear precisely what kind of book the author set out to compose, insofar as no document written prior to Mark exactly conforms with its literary properties. Its themes of travel, conflict with supernatural foes, suffering, and secrecy resonate with Homer's Odyssey and Greek romantic novels. Its focus on the character, identity, and death of a single individual reminds one of ancient biographies. It's dialogues, tragic outcome, and puculiar ending call to mind Greek drama. Some have suggested that the author created a new, mixed genre for narrating the life and death of Jesus.

Dennis R MacDonald, Early Christian Literature (Found in Oxford study bible referring the Gospel of Mark )

It seems he was simply taking the historical life of Jesus and making it a theological story, one where he played the role of a Messiah. His gospel would be the gospel that Matthew (the most frequently referenced gospel in antiquity) and luke pulled from. They also used some source Q that is now lost. Some speculate its the Gospel of Thomas.

The "it seems that the Gospels are increadibly embellished myths" is simply an inference to literary parallels. The gospels are their own literary work, they pull from other works. The book of Revelation even calls Hell 'Hades', a reference to the ancient greek Olympian God (named Hades).

It may seem 'mean' I suppose, but most facts that infer new viewpoints must discredit others. The information is still objective.

I very much love biblical scholarship because it requires people to suspend their own prophetic views. I had one guy claim David was 'right' to kill Uria and David committing adultery was perfectly fine, the guy was jewish, if he actually thought it was 'right' then he would be disagreeing with his own version of scripture and David's everlasting monarchy wouldn't have fallen.

I think it's imperative to leave links like the one posted. It is "multiple views" but they are only multiple because they conflict with scripture, the origins of which are worthy of their own study. 01:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim Virgin Failed the Martin Luther Good Article Nom

Just to let you know that Slim Virgin, who is actively involved in the editing of Martin Luther has failed the nom without comment on the talk page, removing all trace of the nom. This is something like I expected would happen. Thanks for trying, anyway. --CTSWyneken 02:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What bothers me is that she didn't follow any of the rules. I have no investment in the promotion of the article to any status, although it would be nice. She shouldn't be reviewing an article she's written, rewritten and insisted we document to death. (how about not saying Jesus Christ in an article unless it's in quotes or that Luther believed in salvation by grace without a cite. *roll eyes*

Anyway, I'd love to have an honest review for the suggestions. My aim with this and other articles is to have something that my students can cite without getting a lecture from me about not trusting wikipedia. Good evals help it.

Oh, I hope you don't mind my going active in the GA process... --CTSWyneken 03:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw Radio Mast

I have verified all information and it seems to be correct. The external links seem to be good sources.

If you have good faith, you can always remove it from the good article list on Misplaced Pages. --GoOdCoNtEnT 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You are not. You are just trying to be a good Wikipedian. Please double check the other article I made a good article, Ace Books. --GoOdCoNtEnT 02:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I discussed the reasons for which I failed articles on their talk pages though. I'll talk in the future. --GoOdCoNtEnT 02:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Where do I write about it? --GoOdCoNtEnT 03:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Pedro del Valle

Would you review this one? I need to recuse, since I waded in to help convert old reference style to the new, inline variety. Thanks! Bob--CTSWyneken 23:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it just seems big! All that data was there, I just untied the footnotes. 8-) --CTSWyneken 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 FIFA World Cup controversies

Regarding the nomination for GA on the above page, you said: "I've put the GA nomination on hold, because the introduction is one sentence long, I really don't think that summarizes an article of this size very well as per WP:LEAD, it will need to be expanded out to summarize the article, preferably in one or two paragraphs detailing the most important stuff or something." I ask that you re-evaluate the lead, as I have changed it in heed with your suggestions. Thanks, Daniel.Bryant 04:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

LEAD problems with GA noms

Hey there. I've added to the short LEAD for the Diego Maradona article and have broken up the previously long LEAD for the Rallying article. Do you fancy taking another look? Regards SeanMack 04:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Luther GA Nom Comments

The Martin Luther article has been nominated for Good Article status. A reviewer dropped by and said that everything but the Luther and Antisemitism section qualified. Unser Mantanmoreland said, in effect, the section was just fine but the restof the article was hagiographic. While I intend to leave the issue well enough alone, I thought you might be interested in helping see if he will offer us some suggestions. (or offering your own, for that matter).--CTSWyneken 15:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Capitalism from GA status

Can you direct me to the page where it was decided that Capitalism no longer met the criteria for a Good Article...I see the template was change by you on the article talk page here. Thanks!--MONGO 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay thanks for that.--MONGO 17:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

sprotecting an article under anon attack

I'm going to be away for a little bit so I thought sprotecting an article under anon attack is justified. I clicked Save before I wrote that I'm reverting to the last ver. by Ian Pitchford. I'd appreciate if more people watch and revert POV & OR edits. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens 22:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

CKB, Christwiki

How have you been? Haven't seen you around CKB (wikia) lately, and ChristWiki (relately) seems dead. Arch O. La 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There were 16 CKB users active in August. ChristWiki is a ghosttown. I noticed that CarmPedia is down. This is evangelism? Arch O. La 23:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Ferg

I've posted a reply to your note on my user page: User_talk:StephenFerg I hope that is the proper technique for replying. If not, let me know. I'm a relative Misplaced Pages newbie, and still learning. (August 29, 2006 10pm EST) -- Steve Ferg

Advice on Martin Luther and Theology of Martin Luther

Would you take a look at the current discussion and advise if you think I'm crazy? --CTSWyneken 00:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Nogus

• John Reid 05:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Abraham a polygamist?

A couple of editors are of the opinion that Abraham was a Polygamist, so they have added Cat:Polygamist. See talk:Abraham I have doubts as to the validity of this classification. I think this was more a 'rent-a-womb' scheme than a marriage to Hagar. Do you have an opinion? I wonder if this is a LDS / Mormon attempt to add respectability to Polygamy? rossnixon 05:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting Biblical

{{Portal:Bible/Featured chapter/Template}}. Thought you might be interested.

come take a look

hey homestarm --

after being blocked and seeing 'paradoxtom' be blocked and get very upset about it, i decided to put together some suggestions for changing 3RR. come take a look at my policy proposal changes at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Proposed_policy_changes

i think they could prevent a good portion of the conflict that comes with 3RR. comments are welcome.

Justforasecond 16:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Awarded to Homestarmy for tireless work on Good Article Candidates and Good Article Review. Your dedication and contributions help to make Misplaced Pages a better project. Thank you.

As I was looking at the Good Article Review archives and other Good Articles, I kept seeing your name everywhere :P I figure such work deserves recognition and I wanted to thank you for all that you've done. Agne 18:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Homestarmy 18:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane John (2006) refs

They've all been fixed. The NHC recently changed the URLs to all their archived stuff for this year. BTW, looking at your userpage, I think NationStates players need our own userbox! Heh. – Chacor 13:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Reviewing

Thanks for the comment. I'm am not 100% sure what is being asked though. Do you want me to just list the criteria and put passes next to each one? I do try to check everything and my standards are close to those that have been discussed on Misplaced Pages talk:Good article candidates recently. I will be happy to comply with any new standards the project sets but there isn't much to say when it meets everything, unlike one that fails where I do always leave specific criticism. I see that the instructions now ask one to leave a comment when passing an article. That must have been added since the last time I looked at them closely. Eluchil404 15:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

GA refs

By what process did inline citations become a requirement for GA? I've seen (and participated in) discussions on the criteria page and the candidates page, but there's no consensus as far as I can see. I certainly don't think you should be delisting articles based on that, when the change is less than a day old. Kafziel 17:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

GA review of Creation-Evolution controversy(somewhat offtopic remarks)

You realize how much your statement would annoy the IDers? JoshuaZ 01:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: the reason it would annoy IDers is that your statement depicted ID and creationism as interchangeable. "the same attitude all of the creationism-related articles have, `There is no dispute about evolution, and ID'ers are basically lying about this." It was, in any event, meant as a possibly humorous sidenote. JoshuaZ 05:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Snow-white Miriam article

There's currently a discussion going on in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Snow-white Miriam about whether to delete this article. You might want to present your views there. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

James Kennedy

Thanks for taking that out. I never noticed it was in there but it is almost certainly false. Some really extreme evangelicals in fact accuse Kennedy of being too eucemincal with the Roman Catholics. See for example . JoshuaZ 02:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It most certainly would count. We might in practice have slightly more leeway because Kennedy has compatriots and colleagues who have made comments pretty close to those but I would see it as a definite violation of WP:BIO. JoshuaZ 02:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Gonzalez

I have read the article 2 times. Then afterward, went out to read both of what sounded like reliable sources (and were) and found that all the material that was found in the article pertained to both references in question. From this, I added the inline citation so you wouldn't have to re-review the article pertaining to the 2b criteria and so I assessed the article as having enough of everything. If, on the contrary, you still think some unsourced statements should be cited, feel free to discuss them, I will father the article for that matter only.

We can now use this article to show people that even if there aren't many references and really very few inline citations the article can still be called a good article. Lincher 01:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

GAAuto error?

It seems to of removed a Typhoon and Black Marsh, and I think those are both still GA's :/. Homestarmy 00:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Homestarmy,

Black Marsh still appears to be listed under the "Fictional sites" category. It was removed from the recently added list but I don't think it was ever removed from the "Fictional sites" category.

Cedars 02:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation headache

I hope you now see the problem I was trying to illustrate. User:Agne27 was a dream compared to what's going on now. We have a user going on the rampage basically telling us that every article I contribute to is "noncompliant". This citation madness needs to stop! Thanks for your help in pointing out that delisting guidelines say a review needs to be done. --ScienceApologist 04:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

Thanks for your reply. My point was that in all due respect I thought Film maker was wrong to delete my nomination, my GA Nominee tag, and to put up a Former GA Canidate in its place vs. simply leaving a "disagree" apply on the nomination page. Yet, if all of those things are an automatic thing when one posts a "disagree" then I understand. Yet, I understand your point too I think that one can post replys quickly. If I'm confusing what you said I'm sorry. Thanks again. DavidWJohnson 22:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Counter

I agree with your GA failings. Altough it would be nice if you wouldn't change the top counter and let the bot do it as it creates an extra edit, messes the count, and because your the only one who really does it. I mean no harm and if you like doing it, you can continue. :) Lincher 00:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Biblical Inerrency

That was an unusal scripture to use (John 10:34-36, I think that is what you meant). Christ was quoting Psalms 82:1, 6, which reads:

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

This is beside the point, but a LDS would use this scripture in other ways. For example, Psalms states that God is standing in the congregation of the mighty, or among the gods. Who are gods? Verse 6, the one Jesus was quoting, states plainly that at least some of the ones he was talking about were children of the most High, which are called gods.

It is important to recognize that there is one God or Godhead and that gods are not the equivalent of God. My purpose in pointing this out is that I thought it was an interesting choice of scripture. These are some of the basic scriptures that we use to demonstrate that we are children of the most High and can become gods. Personally, I still don't care for the statement, "we can become gods". It always seems to stick in my craw when I say it. It is beyond my comprehension that God would extend this gift to me. Jesus is recorded in the Book of Revelations 3:21 as saying, "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." What a glorious promise and yet it is also beyond my understanding. Mormons don't create their theology, but everything we believe, or the vast majority, is found within the Bible. The Book of Mormon teaches very few unique teachings; it mainly is a second witness to jew and gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.

I appreciate your participation on WIKI. I can be a bit abrasive and hope that we can continue to improve WIKI articles that are centered on Jesus Christ. Cheers. Storm Rider 01:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I thought it might of been a bit too easy to simply quote that verse and hope it stuck heh. I sort of guessed an LDS would probably take the scripture the other way, I thought about using the "All scripture is good for teaching" one instead, but I figured since a quick check on google made the other one seem more cut and dry i'd try it. You know, it seems to me that the situation could just be dodged by simply saying that the four points are as the author mentioned there sees them, for instance, it could say "These four points the author sees...", and then the book would reference the statements, instead of somebody having to go and prove the points one by one. However, i've got some homework to do in Java to do, so I won't be able to respond thoroughly tonight, or finish what I was getting myself into concerning the Jesus article. (The thing is, I didn't go and find that cite, I just decided i'd try to defend it when Roland came, but i'll explain myself later). Homestarmy 01:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may jump in here, I would also be concerned that the use of verses such as that in the article may constitute WP:OR if we don't have citations to other people using the verses in that way. JoshuaZ 01:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, you speak wisely; as it stands it would be OR. It would be much better to quote a thologian who uses the/a scripture to prove the points being made. However, I think Homestar can rephrase the statement and attribute it to the author who initially made the points.

I would appreciate hearing your views of those scriptures and how they are interpreted regarding mankind being the children of the most High and gods. Just curious how others interpret them. Storm Rider 05:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now that I have time to type, I was actually trying to quote John 10:35, I just included 34 and 36 so people would see the context :/. I'm fairly certain that that Psalm doesn't say anything about inerrancy of scripture....but anyway, my first reaction when you asked for a citation was to quote the verse about how all scripture is good for teaching, but I figured I might as well google and see if I could find a better example, and what better an example than a proclamation by Christ that Scripture cannot be broken? But anyway, I think you mean Psalm 82:6, and the word "gods" is in quotations right there, (in the NIV anyway) so I get the feeling it doesn't mean "gods" in the sense of actually, you know, gods. Oh, and you removed the bible verse in the inerrancy article and said that the reference was inside the person's works, does the sentence still need to be reworded or what? Homestarmy 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the book cited, but it seems to me that a scripture would not be needed because the book is cited. I suppose that if one wished to be perfectly accurate, one could acutally cite the page numbers in the book where each point is made. If you have the book and can quote the page number, it might completely remove all potential conflict with other editors.

You are correct, Psalms does not talk about scripture inerrancy. Christ was quoting Psalms 82 in John 10:34 when he stated Ye are gods. In the NIV it states, "Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'." The NIV does put the Psalm verse gods in quotes, but not the verse in John. Interesting. I tried to find a commentary from Protestant and/or Catholic perspectives, but was not successful. They don't seem to address the "Ye are gods" phrase at all; it was as if the statement had not meaning or not worthy of comment. Odd. If you find anything regarding this verse on your end, I would be curious. Storm Rider 10:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well i've never much heard of this verse before until now, I take it the LDS church has made some extensive commentary on it then? Homestarmy 13:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you have not heard of it. It seems to not be a verse of interest to many Christian churches; however, it is interesting. There are several others that are similar. No significant commentary, but it is understood to be a literal statement.

The concept of Theosis within Mormonism is seen as blasphemey by other Christians. We believe that the prophets and Christ taught that we are children of God. He referred to us as gods, but we do not believe this is the equivalent of the Father. An analogy would be just as children grow up to be adults, so the purpose of mortality for God's children to return to Him. The afterlife is an active existence filled with purpose; not just standing around singing praises for eternity. Though I am uncomfortable with the statement, "becoming gods", I understand its meaning. We will become co-inheritors with Jesus Christ. Father will direct our activity for the rest of eternity and He will always be our God.

If you do run into some commentary, I would appreciate hearing about it. Cheers. Storm Rider 09:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, i'm having trouble understanding this view, so through inheriting with Jesus Christ, do you say that you turn into gods, but not into gods which are equal in authority and power to God? How does that work out with Mark 12:32, where Jesus sees that one of the teachers of the law answered wisely when he said that "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him."? It doesn't seem like he's referring to one God to worship either, just simply that there is only one God. And also, why does it have to be literal just because it isn't written in quotes when Jesus says it, what about when it does have quotes in Psalms? Finally, I gotta tell ya, to a person who watches Kids Next Door, your second to last sentence would be very creepy, because of this guy :D Homestarmy 14:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Homestar, I must say that I haven't a clue about the cartoon you referenced or the character cited. I must be showing my age. A few points: I would not get too hung up on punctuation; the punctuation you are referring did not exist in the known texts. They are a fabrication of different translations; thus the NIV's use of quotes where the KJV does not have any. Second, in reality LDS don't dwell too much on this concept of godhood. It is sensationalized by those critical of the church; however, we see the purpose of creation fulfilled in the teaching of eternal progression. I think you find many verses in the scriptures that discusses plurality of gods; just do a search. There is one Godhead and one Heavenly Father. He will always be our Heavenly Father throughout eternity. Getting back to my analogy, a child is never the equal of his parents; it is even more so with God. This term "god" has no relationship to God. Jesus said we would be co-inheritors with Him. He is the one who said we were gods and children of God. What does co-inheritor mean to you? I have a difficult time not taking Him at His word. The second to last sentence you thought was creepy was "We will become co-inheritors with Jesus Christ." Do you want a reference for it in the Bible? Storm Rider 09:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Storm, its just when most people refer to God they say, you know, God, or at least "The Father", and just saying Father like that sounded really creepy because of that show (And because I don't remember anyone saying it alone like that, even though the Misplaced Pages article Father does). I mean he's the main evil guy in the show, and all the people always refer to him as "Father"....ahem, but anyway, the puncuation probably didn't exist, but I suspect that there was an equivalent that led the NIV editor people to put them there. However, dodging the issue of the KJV vs. modern translations, (Mostly because I've never argued over it before, and the last time I did that with someone, I ended up with this) the Old Testament contains numerous references to different "gods", but it never once refers to them as actual, real gods. For instance, when Israel is constantly fighting different people, there are references where other pagan tribes refer to numerous gods of this and that, and references to "Their (Israel's) God being the most powerful", but the Bible never actually supports these people's perspectives, while from their perspective there were many Gods, from the Bible's, there is only one. (And once again, remember Mark 12:32....) For instance, if we were talking about Greek Mythology, we might say that there were many gods of the Greek myths, but we wouldn't be saying that these gods were actually real, rather, we would be referring to the concepts which supposedly referred to the gods of the ancient Greeks. And, in this way, I don't see how either the Psalm or Jesus's quote of it has to mean actually existing gods. Homestarmy 18:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM

This is a message for the one who deleted the link African Holocaust. I dont care if you think it is spamming the facts are this site deals with slavery. If Steven Hawkins contributed to "Black Holes" would you delete it. You can only delete a link for a valid reason. the site deals with slavery in debt, hence it is relevant. the film on slavery is a film on slavery. all of these things are facts, so there is zero reason to remove the link. Films on slavery--then it is 500 Years Later isnt it a film on Slavery? so leave it alone----Halaqah 15:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Halaqah 15:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, "this one" has a username. Second of all, the only things i've deleted of yours was the verse from Job which said manservants and maidservants, thusly not being the same as "the slave", and thusly not meaning what you said it meant. If you've been spamming this link across different user pages, you might run into trouble. Homestarmy 15:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your message

I'm going to remove your message from my talk page, as I assume it wasn't meant for me and is likely to confuse things in this already confused conversation. Cheers Yomangani 15:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, ok. Do you have any idea yet what he's talking about?Homestarmy 15:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I do now...I've replied on his talk page if you want to see what was going on. Yomangani 15:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jesus article red link

Just so you know, the red link you fixed over at Jesus was due to this recent AfD. Peyna 01:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Archie

Thanks - it's good to know he's ok. Sophia 17:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice edit summary for December 25!

I would have reverted that too if I'd seen it...the note about "Birth of Jesus" that you reinstated is there to try to slow down the dimwits who insist on adding an entry for year 0 (no such year) or year 1 or whatever for Jesus. -- Jim Douglas _(contribs) 21:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Creationism

You are right that did not have any thing to do with creationism at all.--Seadog.M.S 22:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Werdnabot

About the Werdnabot thing, from what I know it can be used on any talk page. The Esperanza page seems to make good use of it and besides it will hopefully make archiving jobs a little bit easier. In fact if it works well we should try it on other talk pages. However I don't really know much else about it, if you have any other questions you might want to ask Werdna about it. Tarret 01:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

GA

Hello, i'm a frequent editor of the GA project, and you don't appear to have given a review of this article anywhere. Since there's all those merge tags on the talk page, did it get lost in a history somewhere? The rules for passing articles state that you have to leave at least a comment on the talk page about reviews, specifically: Leave a comment about your reasons for passing the article (with suggestions to improve the article, if you can). on the WP:GAC page under the section concerning passing articles. I'm just checking, because we've had a bit of a problem in the past with people upgrading article status when nobody is looking.....Homestarmy 02:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave a review, but I also resent your insinuation. If you check, you'll see I've reviewed many GA articles, failing several--one yesterday too, over the last several months, most before the recent restructuring of the GA project. Rlevse 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fitness Landscape

Hello - I noticed you downgraded the article fitness landscape from "good article". You did not leave any reason why or a list of what you considered must be done to restore it to the status of a good article. Could you do this, because I would like to improve the article if possible. Thanks - PAR 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

On second reading, I see your objections. Please disregard above. PAR 19:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

John Hagee

Homestarmy, I noticed that you are having a long-running discussion with some other users on the John Hagee talk page. What sort of things were going on to spark such a discussion and what do you personally believe about Hagee's beliefs, particularly about the so-called "end times?"

I am a Christian. However, I do believe that Hagee is a threat to peace IF people take what he says to heart. Anyone who misinterprets the Bible and says "the United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West... a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation and Second Coming of Christ" is dangerous. In a way, Hagee is no different from Iran's president Mahmound Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad has made comments about the emergence of the "mahdi," who will appear after global chaos erupts. Hagee is encouraging war with Iran to hasten the return of Christ.

Jesus Christ will appear for the Second Coming in his own time. It is not up to us to hasten His coming. We have been living in the "last days" for the past 2,000 years (Hebrews 1:2, James 5:3). The "antichrist" doesn't have to be a single political dictator (1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3, 2 John 1:7). The word "antichrist" never appears in Revelation, only in those 4 passages in 1 and 2 John.

Dispensational and premillennial theories are unscriptural and dangerous for people to believe. I used to believe them myself and they still scare me somewhat, but now I know better ever since the recent Israel/Hezbollah war led me to rethink my beliefs. Clinevol98 20:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What happpened was this new user showed up and started saying things about Hagee that, well, I didn't agree with, so I started giving rebuttles, and a conversation developed. Unfortunently I have a good bit of homework to do with Java, i'll try to reply to you some time later. Homestarmy 20:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i've got some time now. Firstly, Hagee's end time theology seems to be the focus of alot of his sermons, he likes to look at the crisis's in the middle east and point out how they fit in with prophecy in Revelations, and really, I don't see much problem with that. Sometimes I feel he focus's on it a bit too much to the detriment of really evangelizing to listeners, but TBN mostly recycles the same sermons by him alot, I could be missing some of the picture. I don't think Hagee is trying to say the Bible explicitly commands the U.S. in particular to aid Israel, but i'm pretty sure he's following the whole "Whosoever blesses Israel, I will bless" thing, which I know is in the OT somewhere, and Israel does need a whole lot of help. Now, the pre-emptive strike probably isn't the best of ideas, as most of the people in the Middle East aren't saved and thusly would go to Hell when they die, which would be a problematic end for them, finding a way to step up evangelism there without getting caught would probably be a better solution, but that's just me. If worse comes to worse, we will probably have to fight Iran one way or another :/. I don't remember Hagee saying anything about the United States fighting Iran immedietly bringing the second coming though, that'd be some crazily liberal interpretation of Revelations alright to somehow fit that in there. On the Mahdi, from what i've heard, the Mahdi of Islam has some traits which are, ah, remarkably similar to the Anti-Christ of Christianity, so I really don't think there's grounds for comparison between Hagee and Iran's president there. I know what you mean about Kingdom Theology though, but Hagee really doesn't seem to be a Kingdom Theology kind of guy, he seems to be simply saying that all this bad stuff is going down, so it looks like the Rapture is coming pretty soon. I'm curious though, how do you find both Dispensational and premillenial end-times theology to be flawed? I don't really know if I believe either of them, (Mostly because I haven't thought about which camp i'm in much, I just sort of believe what I read in the Bible :/.) but what exactly do you believe? Homestarmy 21:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I believe. I fall in the postmillennial/partial preterist camp. Jesus will return one day to end time and judge everyone, saved and unsaved. There is no "pre-tribulation rapture" or even a tribulation itself. Jesus will return and "rapture" Christians at the Second Coming, at the end of time. There is no "secret" coming of Jesus to "rapture" Christians before the Second Coming. A "rapture" before the Second Coming or a Third Coming of Christ is found nowhere in Scripture. Verses used to justify them are taken out of context or misapplied to fit a theory.

There is no literal millennium during which Jesus will rule over the Earth. That time period is purely symbolic. The millennium is only mentioned once in the Bible, in Revelation 20. Keep in mind that Revelation is a HIGHLY symbolic book and most of it is not meant to be taken literally. Think about it: if there is a literal minimum, that is a major event. So why would it not be mentioned by Jesus, Paul, or any of the apostles? The millennium is taking place right now as Satan is restrained. At the end of the millennium, Satan will be loosed from his "abyss" for the Battle of Armageddon, which itself doesn't have to be a literal battle.

Current events involving Israel and the Arab world have nothing to do with Bible prophecy. God does not work through Israel anymore and Israel is not "God's timepiece" as so many dispensationals like to say. We are all "baptized into one body" (1 Corinthians 12-13) and the plan for salvation is the same for Gentiles and Jews. Israel in 1948 was restored by an act of man, not an act of God. Geopolitical Israel has nothing to do with Bible prophecy. All of the Old Testament passages about blessing Israel applied to the Old Covenant and how God worked through Israel during the Old Testament. A New Covenant through Jesus Christ is now in place, and God's plan for Israel is the same as it is for us; we are saved through Jesus.

Matthew 24 is talking about events surrounding the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Jesus Himself said "this generation will not pass away until all these things have happened." Taking that for what it says, it sounds like Jesus was talking about events that will surround the destruction of the temple by the Romans (the "abomination of desolation" that Jesus and Daniel talk about). This verse has been misapplied to mean that the generation that sees the rebirth of Israel will be the generation that sees the rapture and that the "Antichrist" will rule from a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.

Ezekiel 38-39 is not a "Russian/Iranian" invasion of Israel. Meshech and Tubal are not Moscow and Tobolsk. Meshech and Tubal were tribes that traded with the Israelites in that day (Ezekiel 27:13). Besides, the word "Moscow" wasn't even used until 1147 (Moscow). The word "Moscow" comes from an extinct Finnic language. So how can anyone make an idenfitication from the ancient Hebrew to a word that was first used 1700 years later? Notice in Ezekiel 38 it talks about this army fighting with bucklers, shields, and swords. No modern-day armies use these kinds of weapons. This may seem obvious, but it is worth noting because the dispensationalists pride themselves on taking Scripture literally. However, this is one of those passages they choose to take figuratively because it fits in with their theories. Why would Israel need to use the weapons of the invaders for fuel for 7 years (Eze 39:9-10)? Israel has nuclear power. Also notice that this invasion makes no references that it will occur just before or in tandem with the Second Coming. The Israelites were in captivity in Babylon at this time, so what good would a story of a 21st Century do for them? This is a passage that was intended to comfort and encourage the Israelites at that time who were in bondage in Babylon. It's important to put the entire book in context. Notice how before the prophecy against Gog and Magog is talked about there are prophecies against Ammon (Ezekiel 25), Moab (25), Edom (25), Philistia (25), Tyre (26), the King of Tyre (28), Egypt (29), Pharaoh (32), and Edom once again (35). Clearly, those passages applied to that day in age. So why should Ezekiel 38-39 fast forward 25 centuries later?

So what do these chapters mean? The best explanation is that this is talking about the invasion of Israel by Antiochus Ephipanes in 168 BC. Notice he says "latter days;" and this invasion occurred 4 centuries after it was first written. This "Russian invasion" is nothing more than a theory. Sure, it might happen someday (surely not anytime soon), but it won't be because it was Biblical prophesied. Besides, how likely is it that Russia will invade Israel anytime soon anyway? Israel and Iran might fight soon, but Russia fighting alongside Iran? No way.

I could go on and on and on talking about how Daniel 9:27 is not the signing of a "7-year peace treaty" by the "Antichrist" with Israel and Arab states. I've already talked about how the idea of a singular "Antichrist" who rules the world is not found anywhere in Scripture.

What I'm saying about Hagee is that encouraging a pre-emptive strike on Iran because it would fit in with suspect Bible prophecy is scary and dangerous. He makes irresponsible comments and writes irresponsible books like "Jerusalem Countdown." The first error in that book is right on the front cover: "Iran's nuclear arsenal is ready." By the best estimates, Iran won't have the capacity to make nuclear weapons until 2009-2015.

And yes, there are grounds for comparison between Hagee and Iran's president on one point; they are looking forward to global chaos so their savior can return. Jesus will come in God's time. It is not up to us to hasten it. We are to live our lives for Jesus, evangelize and disciple the lost, and everything else will take care of itself. Hagee is out to sell books and videos by his "fire and brimstone" sermons. Hagee should be more concerned on saving people in Iran rather that dropping bombs on them to fulfill prophecy.

Now don't get me wrong, I support Israel. But not because I'm commanded to in the Bible. I support them for political, not theological, reasons. They are the lone democracy in the Middle East and we should stand behind them.

Also keep in mind that the belief in the Mahdi is a radical Shia Muslim belief. Shia Muslims are the majority in Iran, but the overwhelming majority of Muslims (85%) are Sunni. While it is scary that Iran's president sees himself to bring about the Mahdi, it would likely spark a fierce response from Sunnis who disagree with him. Ahmadinejad may be crazy, but he's also smart. Can you imagine the world's response if he attacked Israel? The world would come to Israel's defense and Iran would be nailed hard at this juncture, not Iran's.

Personally, I don't think Jesus will return until the Great Commission is fulfilled. This means not just evangelism but discipleship in ALL nations. Just imagine how long it will take before this is done on a widespread scale in the Middle East and places like China. This will take a long time and is not close to happening. The millennium stands for a very long time, which is what Jesus told us to expect (Matthew 25:19). Of course Jesus could return at any time and we should be ready for it, but I can't say that I'm really expecting Him to.

If you'd like to hear more I'd be glad to keep talking with you. What do you believe? I used to believe in the premillennial theories until I began looking into them during and after the recent Israel/Hezbollah conflict. I'm still frightened by what some people believe the Bible says about current events, but I'm learning to put those theories away because, after all, I think they are just theories. Clinevol98 22:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, i've never debated anything about revelations before, it's just one of those things I dunno why we can't live and let live about :/. After all, did Christ ever command us to all have the same end-times theology? :) . You've said a whole lot of things that would likely take me a very long time to examine, (Some of which I don't think I agree with, such as there being no rapture and that verse about helping Israel being cancelled) but if I may be so bold, from what i've heard from Hagee's sermons and from people who give sermons like his, i'm not sure you're hearing them correctly. You say their looking forward to chaos and death, and that Hagee want's a pre-emptive strike, but the quote from him on his article here didn't actually give an adequate reference for that, (and, therefore, I removed it) for all I know, somebody just put that there to discredit him and cited a random conference thing he went to. And none of them ever seem to want chaos and death, they just seem to want people to really realize right quick that its happening and that it will get worse, probably so that they'll go and get saved....while they still have time. Homestarmy 23:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, I didn't say that there isn't a rapture. There is a rapture, but it doesn't occur before the tribulation. The rapture will occur at the end of time at the Second Coming. The Bible nowhere explicitly talks of a "secret" coming or "Third" coming of Jesus before the Second Coming. Also, nowhere in the New Testament are we commanded to support "God's chosen people"/Israel. God's chosen people are Christians. God does not work through Israel anymore and I don't believe we are commanded by God to support modern-day Israel. Again, I do not want you to get me wrong on this. I support Israel and they have every right to go after those who seek to destroy them. Although I do not believe that God has a very specific end times "plan" for them, He obviously remembers His relationship with them and watches over them as He does everyone else.

Of course Jesus wanted us to have the same end times theology. Division among Christians is the last thing He wants. In fact, dispensationalism and premillennialism are the "new kids on the block" when it comes to end times doctrines.

Second, have you ever visited raptureready.com and their message board? There are lots of people out there, Hagee included, who believe these events are at hand and maybe even welcome them. It is as if they believe the world is an awful place, they don't want to live on Earth anymore, and they want to escape as soon as possible. Personally, I would love to live a long life here on Earth before I die or before the Second Coming. Do you believe that all this stuff is coming soon, because we very well could be here another 1,000 years.

They are very anxious for these things to happen now because they believe Scripture says they are to happen now (from the Matthew 24:34 verse). If Hagee didn't really say that unsourced comment then obviously I won't hold him to that, but I wouldn't be surprised if he already has or will make a statement like that in the future. The man scares me with what he believes will shortly take place. He favorite phrase is "there will be a 'nuclear exchange' in the Middle East." That's not evangelism. It sounds like getting people to believe your opinion and buy all your ministry materials based on fear. Hagee's telecasts are part sermon, part advertisement. Clinevol98 02:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

While its true we are not to have any divisions, we are also told all be decided in our own minds concerning smaller things, and alot of times differences in end times theology really don't matter. However, I think in this case they might matter based on some of the things you're saying, for instance, you say you would love to live a long life here on earth, is that through love of life? Nextly, while its true the NT doesn't tell us to support Israel, the part of the OT that is recommending it so you'll be blessed wasn't part of the Law, it came from one of the prophets I think. Nextly, in revelations, surely you have to admit that Israel in particular is the scene of at least some things mentioned surrounding Armageddon, I mean, there's all that temple being rebuilt stuff, and even if you take it symbolically, why would the symbolism cite the temple in Israel when there's a whole world full of land it could of referred to? Nextly, dispensationalism and premillenialism as newly defined constructs may be making an entire series of doctrines in a new bundle, but even the apostles and people in the NT sure acted like they expected Jesus to come any day now, which is a big thing for premillenialism and whatnot. While it certainly doesn't make premillenialism or dispensationalism as a whole right, it does seem to cast doubt on the idea that there was widespread acceptance of a notion that Jesus wasn't coming for a very, very long time. On the rapture, I mean the rapture in the Left Behind series sense, what else could Christ's warnings about being ready for Him to return and those warnings about His arrival like "a theif in the night" refer to, a theif probably wouldn't take 1,000 years (or, as you say, a symbolic amount of time possibly countless millenia longer) upon arriving at the scene to do something. On Raptureready.com, i'm afraid I can't trust a site that says under its hell-fire preaching topic here that hell-fire preaching is a good thing, because it shows a lack of understanding that hell-fire preaching really barely says anything about the gospel, if it even mentions it period, and i'm fairly certain Hagee mentions Christ's name many times in his sermons. My favorite ministry is the one which runs The Way of the Master, and most of them seem fairly dispensationalist to a point, but they certainly aren't much like Raptureready.com. Hagee seems to believe that nuclear war will take place because, as i've told that editor on the Hagee talk page several times, Iran seems to hate us. A whole lot. From the antics their president (And really, much of their religion) cause, I wouldn't be surprised if nukes starting flying, and it would probably be from Iran first honestly. (And likely for lousy reasons to boot). I think we'd probably shoot most of them down first though, and besides, what's to be afraid about, we are commanded not to be afraid of war and talks of wars. And really, Hagee doesn't seem to be telling people to fear Iran and cower and tremble at the nukes to come, but he always seems to talk about things in the context of getting ready for Christ to come back, so even though its hardly a very direct form of evangelism, its probably much more effective than the touchy feely stuff going on in most big churches now. And while he does sell his things, he has to get funding somehow to run that show of his, that kind of stuff costs a very large amount of money, and even a pretty fair sized congregation probably couldn't be expected to tithe that much. (And yes, I know Hagee is a tithe person, and I don't like it either) Homestarmy 02:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I say I want to live a life here on Earth because that is what I want to do. Frankly I'm not looking forward to the same things that dispensationals look forward to. Jesus told us to keep on living for Him and preaching the Gospel until the end. He didn't say "become absorbed in prophecy and make it your all-consuming thought" (1 Thessalonians 5:2) as so many people do. Paul warned us against doing this (2 Thessalonians 1:1-2).

I really like Ecclesiastes 11:9-10. I don't quite know what you mean by that statement about "love of life".

I agree with you about Hagee's form of evangelism; it's not a direct form of evangelism at all. Jesus, Paul, and the apostles didn't evangelize people based on the fact that global chaos was about to erupt and there wasn't much time. The based their evangelism based on the truth that Jesus is the Son of God and he bore the sins of the world upon Himself so that we might have eternal life with Him. They didn't go around scaring people, which I believe is what Hagee does to a certain extent whether he means to do it or not. He shouldn't be scaring people into getting them to getting saved. He also shouldn't decree that we don't have much time before the nukes start flying and the rapture, because he doesn't know that. Only God does. He should show people the truth straight from the Bible on how to be saved rather than getting people to buy into his suspect prophecies.

Personally, there is no way Iran attacks Israel, at least in the next few years. As I said before, the man is crazy but not stupid. Besides, he doesn't even have a nuke yet. Also remember that he is in a very small minority in the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and other moderate Arab nations don't like to see a strong and especially nuclear Iran. It's not in our or their best interests.

I believe the reason Jesus' Second Coming is talked about in an imminent sense is because Jesus wants us to be ready. He could come at any instant. For example, you don't snooze off in class during a lecture because what if the teacher decides to have a pop quiz? We need to be prepared for it to happen at any instant, but the coming itself will come like a thief in the night. However, I do believe that the millennium represents a very long period of time. As you say, this fact doesn't discredit postmillennialism at all.

As for the rebuilding of the temple being talked about in Revelation, I'm not very familiar with that. I'll look into it. On raptureready.com, I was talking about looking at the message board and reading the statements that people make there. What did they say about hellfire preaching that you disagreed with? They frightened me so much that I have blocked that website from my computer! Clinevol98 05:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

On the life thing, I was simply concerned that you were loving your life, to the effect of violating John 12:25. I'm really more of an evangelism are-you-saved kind of a guy rather than a "Believe my end times theology/belief for/against predestination/believe my view concerning transubstantiation" sort of guy. On the apostles, it certainly is true they wern't evangelizing based solely on Revelations because, well, obviously, it probably hadn't even existed then, but I don't think I agree with you that they wern't scaring people another way, after all, they often used the Law in their sermons. While the Bible never tells us the people were really afraid of this, they did often preach about people being saved from the wrath to come, and after all, it is fearful to fall into the hands of the living God. Hagee does however seem a wee bit too confident in the timetable he's predicting though, but even though I do think he really ought to focus more on Jesus and the wrath to come, he's right about one thing, wars will start happening eventually (even if their not the one's he's thinking of). I gotta say though, on Iran, the reason alot of those other arab countries probably don't like what Iran is doing probably isn't because their more moderate, but because their all mostly Sunni and Iran is mostly Shiite :/. The second temple thing seems to be derived from Revelations 11:1, not necessarily explicitly, but because since the temple has been torn down ever since I think around 100 AD, it would logically have to be built back up sometime in the future before power can be given to the two witnesses. For Raptureready, as I looked at more of their site much of it seemed OK, but on the hell-fire bit, the article specifically said that it was a valid method of evangelizing. I don't think whoever wrote that (and there appears to be just one person who wrote all those articles) understands that hell-fire preaching almost never presents the gospel very well, and sometimes fails compleatly at the law too, so you're not only telling people of condemntation and not giving them a solution, but you're also not defending why people are condemned in the first place. I didn't look at their message board, but in my experience, looking at the people who post on forums isn't necessarily the best way to get the point of view of the website its hosted on, because alot of times really anybody can post on those things whether their with the website or not. Homestarmy 14:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Other Arab nations do not want to be intimidated by a nuclear Iran and it is not in their best interests to support Iran in their nuclear ambitions. As you said it also has to do with the Sunni/Shiite split.

I don't really think we are commanded by Jesus to hate our lives by John 12:25. God created us in His image. Does He really want us walking around beating ourselves up and hating the life that God has given us to serve Him? I think what Jesus is talking about there when he says "love his life" is excessive self-pride and self-gratification and not having God first in your life. Jesus also says other things that seem bizarre at first reading, such as Luke 14:26. I mean, do you "hate" your life? Clinevol98 19:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean like hating yourself for existing, I merely mean not loving your life, which doesn't necessarily mean hatred for it. It's an in the world vs. out of the world kind of thing, whereas you shouldn't love what's inside the world. However, you have to understand, the Arab world is a very complicated thing to deal with because its just so unlike the west due to Islamic rule everywhere, it is filled with all sorts of nasty propaganda and myths, and i've heard a report or two that many nations are starting to support Shia Islam more because Iran is more powerful. Both Iran and most other arab nations hate Israel pretty much, and as far as i've read, no arab nations (Well, maybe besides Egypt, but their special) really are against Iran a great deal on this. Homestarmy 19:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Arab world is complicated, but I can assure you that the Arab World does not want to see Iran get a nuclear weapon. They do not want to see Iran become the major power play in the Middle East. Remember Saudi Arabia's, Egypt's, and Jordan's stances on the Israel/Hezbollah war? They actually condemned Hezbollah! They saw that war (and rightly so) as Iran flexing its muscles in the region and became worried. Other Westernized Arab nations, like the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain, don't share Iran's hateful desires.

I think it's simplfying a situation to make this scenario "Arabs vs. the West." Some fellow Muslims have a hatred for fellow Muslims. A nuclear Iran is a huge threat to regional peace and security and Iran's Arab neighbors know that.

What surprises me is the fact that a lot of people are looking to a "Russian/Iranian" joint attack on Israel soon. Sure, Iran hates Israel, but Russia? They have helped Iran in the construction of one of their nuclear reactors, but an all-out invasion of Israel very soon? How likely do you see that? Clinevol98 21:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, alot of people i've read about seem to think the other Arab countries may of condemned that war with Lebanon because it was too soon for their liking, and while the simple existance of this theory alone certainly doesn't make it right, i'm not so certain other arab countries were against the fight based on Iran's participation, after all, Syria is perhaps an even bigger player in helping Hezbollah and those kinds of groups get weapons, and i'm fairly certain their dominated by Sunni islam rather than Shia. I don't think all the countries around there really care a good deal about Iran attacking them, and I don't think they'd really be eager to stop Iran or condemn them too much either if they attack Israel. On Russia, I gotta admit, i'm not really sure how that extrapolation came into being with Revelations, I think it has to do with some OT prophecy concerning people quite a distance to the north of Israel joining up with a bunch of other armies to try and beat Israel, and supposedly, this location is somewhere in modern day Russia. I gotta say though, I agree that Russia wouldn't be very high on my "list of people who want Israel to die" list. Another big thing that I wonder about with end times prophecies concerning this war is that no matter how many prophecies dispensationalist type people show as to how the end is nigh, I never see one of the most important things of all that needs to happen, namely, that the Antichrist will have to effectively rule the whole earth under one world government. There's just so many factions in world politics right now, I don't see how even the Antichrist has much hope of uniting them now in merely a single lifetime, even if he somehow takes, say, the whole Arab world or the whole European world, there's still Eastern countries, Africa (Which is split between a highly evangelical pentecostal Christian filled south and a hardline Muslim north) and Latin America to take into account. Homestarmy 22:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Iran's biggest ally is Syria. I read somewhere that they have what they called a "mutual defense pact" with each other. An attack on one of them is considered an attack on both of them. Also keep in mind though that we have Iran, in effect, surrounded. We've got troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and warships/military bases all over the Persian Gulf and so do our allies. I really don't see Iran making any sort of dumb move until we begin bringing troops home from Iraq, which doesn't appear to be anytime soon. In fact, Iran is bogging us down in Iraq by fueling the insurgency. Also remember that Israel (or possibly the US) won't hesitate to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran if they feel they are close to getting a nuke. If this attack caught Iran off guard, Israel might cripple their defenses before they knew what hit them.

You say that you're not sure how the Russian invasion of Israel extrapolation came into Revelation; that's because it's not in Revelation. It's in Ezekiel 38-39, and to me it's just a theory. The nation to the north of Israel somehow automatically becomes 21st Century Russia. But couldn't it theoretically be Lebanon, Turkey, Ukraine, or any nation in Europe? Those nations are all north of Israel too. A 21st Century invasion being described in a book that was written in 500 BC (or thereabouts) cannot be inferred from that passage for the reasons I've already described. Besides, even if that is what it says, it's not close to taking place. As you said, Russia isn't very high up on the "people who want Israel to die" list and probably won't be anytime soon. They are helping Iran purely as a business interest, not because they share Iran's hate of Israel. Europe and the US are putting pressure on Russia to curb their modest "alliance" as well.

I totally agree with you regarding the antichrist. According to the dispensationals, this one man will unite the entire world. People are so skeptical of politicians now, so what makes people believe that the entire world will unite around a one-world government? People would become paranoid and never rally around a cause like that, at least not anytime soon. That is a nightmare scenario to most people and they would never support it or call for it. At this stage, is would be impossible to unite all different people groups as well. We are many generations away before a climate that would be receptive to a global government will come along.

Also remember that, according to the dispensationals, this antichrist will control all transactions between people and maybe even track them (Revelation 13:16). Many people (including Hagee) take this to mean that the antichrist will have everyone injected with some sort of RFID chip in their body that will literally track their every move. There would have to be some sort of supercomputer that would have to be able to keep track of the movements of billions of people all at the same time (Which apparently does exist, according to Jack Van Impe, because it can do 6 billion calculations per second. However, programming that computer to track microchips implanted in human beings is a different story, wouldn't you say?). Also keep in mind that people will apparently willingly be injected with this chip or somehow have it already in them when the antichrist arises (like if it becomes a societal norm over many years). Can you imagine that happening today? This would seemingly do away with cash and credit cards too. Again, we seem to be a long way away from that. Thoughts? Clinevol98 23:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Syria and Iran have something special between each other then I guess that's one thing, but think about it, in terms of how loud outcry has been against Iran, who has been more adament against them, the United States, or those middle eastern nations nearby? On Israel being able to defend itself, all of the wars Israel have fought so far have been near their own borders, and in some of them, their powerful airforce couldn't move into action until after their also powerful ground forces removed the enemies Anti-aircraft weapons. The fastest air route to Iran would be over Syria probably, and considering they probably still have forces on the other side of the Golan Heights, i'm not sure how Israel would really be able to hit Iran quickly, and I don't see how such a small country would have room for nuclear weapon silos to blow Iran up before Iran blew them up. On the Antichrist, its always possible we in the U.S. are somehow under some Orwellian goverment conspiracy deal and that the Antichrist has been secretly controlling the rest of the world for awhile now, but conspiracy theories like that are the only way it seems possible for the Antichrist to just take over really fast. The RFID chip thing isn't actually as silly as it may sound, there's been some news articles out recently about chips they can put in people's heads that people can use to literally play videogames using their brain as the controller, and there's also one which will re-route nerves to get around damaged tissue. (It can be re-programmed remotely.) So if they can do that with something as sensitive as the brain, it seems entirely possible for RFID chips to be the Antichrist's brand of choice, though of course, something metaphysically more evil is entirely possible. Wireless signals in something as tiny as a TomTom can reach up to GPS satellites, so it seems they could easily be re-programmed to the Antichrist's purposes. Homestarmy 13:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist. Remember that people will willingly have these chips put into them because they will adore this one-world ruler. That isn't happening anytime soon.

Middle Eastern nations aren't crying out against Iran because they are afraid to. Believe me, they don't want Iran to get a nuke. Israel also has nuclear weapons and complex missile defense systems that can shoot down most missiles. Germany also recently covered most of the costs on 2 nuclear submarines for Israel that nuclear missiles can be launched from. Having said that, I'm not a "nuclear war" doomsdayer. Iran knows they would be annhilated if they attack Israel.

Remember, the RFID stories you have heard are very isolated cases. It's not like everyone has a microchip in their head. I guess the base technology is there, but definitely not on a widespread scale. Besides, Revelation 13 isn't talking about a one-world ruler tracking people anyway. It's a parody of marks the Roman Empire put on people and isn't a literal mark. There is hardly anything meant to be taken literally in Revelation. Clinevol98 19:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you know if middle eastern nations are afraid to say anything or not, if they aren't actually saying much of anything? The muslim world often operates on a principle of not commenting on atrocities commited in the name of their religion, how many Muslim nations do you know which have a firm majority of people who belive Al Qaida commited 9/11 for example? (I've seen the polls, generally, a commanding majority believe the U.S. did it to themselves to make Islam look bad.) Also, remember, a nuclear weapon doesn't just have to fly into a target, Iran could probably try and smuggle at least one inside of Israel, and with Israel's limited land size, that nuke would do tremendous damage. (Of course, then Israel might have a large crater in it that shouldn't be there in terms of Revelations, so there probably will be an attempt on Israel, it will just probably fail). And why do you think that almost nothing in Revelations can be taken literally, is it merely because Dispensationalists and the like say that they and they alone have the one true "literal" interpretation? Because, you know, you'd be surprised how many people say they have the one true interpretation of things when in reality, if you read it yourself without any presuppositions one way or another about the correct way to read it, you might figure out something on your own that neither side really gets right. Homestarmy 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are simplfying this entire situation. Of course Muslims believe that the US did 9/11 to itself. They have a warped worldview. But don't think the Muslims are one cohesive unit. Why is there sectarian violence in Iraq; Muslims blowing up other Muslims? Because the Sunnis and the Shias hate each other almost as much as they hate Jews and the West!

It would be incredibly difficult for Iran to smuggle a nuke into Israel. Why you ask? Because they would have to sneak it right under the noses of the huge US military presence in the Middle East. They would most likely try to launch a nuclear missile, which they don't have the nuclear warhead to do it with yet. And as you say, any attempt they try to pull this off will probably fail, because Israel is more than capable of shooting a nuclear missile down.

Revelation is not meant to be taken literally because it is apocalyptic literature. Read the book. Is there going to be a literal beast out of the sea? Is there going to be a literal woman who literally gives birth and a literal dragon that literally attempts to eat the child right after it is born? Of course not. So why should Jesus literally reign 1,000 years on the Earth with Satan literally tied with a literal key in a literal abyss? You cannot pick and choose which verses you take literally and which verses you take figuratively. Revelation and every book of prophecy must be read and interpreted in its proper historical context, and dispensationalists don't do that. They want every little thing to somehow apply to them today. This doesn't mean that the Bible is useless today, because of course it isn't. But I don't believe the Bible speaks specifically of current events outside of saying that wars will continue to the end of time and Jesus will one day return to end time.

I believe that dispensationalists misinterpret Revelation and many other passages of Scripture and construct theories around those misinterpretations and taking verses out of context. Most of the things in Revelation are about the Roman Empire and how God's people would be victorious over it. Remember how Rome severely persecuted Christians? The letter must be written with symbols, or a "code" if you will, so if the letter got into the wrong hands (remember, it was being sent to 7 ancient churches, not Christians of the 21st Century; this is just about the only thing that can be taken literally in Revelation) the Romans would have no idea what it was talking about. Ironically, dispensationalists take this fact figuratively, saying it applies to periods of world history with absolutely no basis for doing so! Apocalyptic literature, like Revelation, Ezekiel, and Daniel, are meant to give comfort and peace to people at that time. It is a word for people at that time. Why should Revelation apply to the 21st Century? Revelation 1:1 says "...what must soon take place."

The events that Daniel prophesied didn't come to fruition until much later after they were revealed, and look what Daniel 8:26 says: "The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future." Meanwhile, John was told not to seal up the words of his prophecy, because the "time is near" (Revelation 22:10). It seems to be an urgent message from God to His people. Understand what is being said in its proper context. Why should Daniel and Ezekiel apply to the 21st Century? It is much more plausible for it to apply to the people at those times. We shouldn't think that every bit of prophecy somehow applies to us, because it doesn't. What good would a document concerning events to happen 2000 years from now do for members of the Early Church who were under fierce persecution? Clinevol98 21:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sort of glad we've had such a long conversation, because it gave enough time for this to make it into the news: Times online article. It does seem to support your prior assertion that most other middle eastern countries didn't want Iran to have nuclear technology or weapons, but now it seems the situation has changed, current events sure are fast these days eh? :/ Of couse, the Muslim world does have that self-destructive thing going on, which is good to distract them, but they still show plenty of willingness to attack everyone outside the middle east as well. The US military presence is mostly only large in Iraq and in Turkey, and Iran could easily go through Syria by several routes. But yes, Israel will probably stop them, i'm just saying, Iran will probably try to destroy Israel with a nuke eventually is all, even thought it won't work. On Revelations, why can't there be a literal beast of the sea, there are literal demons in the world aren't there, and Satan is literally real, and angels literally exist, just because characters sound fanciful doesn't mean they don't exist. On the woman giving birth, you have to understand, metaphysical forces that involve Hell and heaven don't really work on the same level as the reality we know, but that doesn't mean they don't happen and aren't literal, literal doesn't mean they have to happen in the standards of our reality. And actually, I can choose which verses to take literally and which ones to take figuratively, I just try to choose the right ones to each category :). Remember, even Paul says in a metaphor he's making concerning Abraham and Abraham's wife I think that "these things may be taken figuratively...." so often times, things in the Bible are literally figurative, their not mutually exclusive categories. I think people who are eager for dispensationalism simply want to get a better idea of how close the end is, which is a bit distracting because it sort of takes away time from evangelism and certain groups (cough Millerites cough) start ignoring Christ, but I don't think their occasional habit of going overboard makes Revelations a figurative and fairly useless book, (I mean come on, if its compleatly figurative, it could mean absolutly anything) it just goes to show how people really aren't good at paying attention to the whole Bible sometimes. I gotta say, if there are dispensationalists out there who think the message to the seven churches was only figurative that's a bit crazy, but I think that simply because i've read it myself and it looks pretty literal to me, so once again, its an issue of reading the Bible for yourself without compleatly over-riding presuppositions one way or another with end-times theology. On Revelation 1:1, remember, this message was originally given to John as a prophecy, and a day to the Lord can be a thousand years, and a thousand years only a day, so its likely a matter of a message being given from God's perspective rather than man's. So all of the things concerning "soon" and "later" in the Bible don't necessarily mean "soon" or "later" in man's sense of the words. The book would be useful to the early church leaders because, as you've pointed out, the first part was directly addressed to several churches, and there were some instructions for them which they could act on immedietly. Therefore, the first part is useful for the early church leaders, and the second parts will likely be useful whenever the end times really start coming. (Plus, the first part can remind us today of the sort of standards the church's needed to keep themselves to). Homestarmy 16:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is good reason to take the book figuratively for the reasons I've described. As you say and as I said before, the book after all is addressed to 7 1st Century churches, not "O, Christians 21 centuries into the future." You say that the book is useful when the end times start coming; the end times are already here (Hebrews 1:1-2). It is a favorite statement of the dispensationals to say "the end times are upon us; the rapture is nigh!" But you could have made the same statement 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 500 years ago, or even 1900 years ago. The "last days" have been here ever since Jesus came to the Earth for the 1st time.

It is important to understand Biblical time references in context as well. While it is true that a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day, remember that God told Daniel to "seal up" his prophecy because it concerned the distant future (the rise of various global empires throughout ancient history), and it did; about 400 years into the future. But John was not told to seal his vision up, because the time was "at hand." Considering the events concerning Roman persecution of Christians, it makes sense for most of Revelation to concern those events and for the time to be "at hand".

And yes, there are people who, for no reason at all, take the 7 churches that the letter is addressed to in a figurative fashion. They say that we are living in the "Laodicean Age," or the age of apostasy. Of course, this is the 7th and last church mentioned which fits in with their "last days" mindset. The one thing that should definitely be taken literally in Revelation is taken figuratively by the dispensationals!

Of course Satan and demons are literal (in fact, they are literal and spiritual) beings, but as I said before this book must be understood in context. The fact that Satan is literal is a fact that is established throughout the Bible. Literal beasts out of the sea are not established elsewhere in the Bible and neither is a literal millennium. If Revelation said "don't worry, Rome is doomed," the message of the book would have never gotten out, so it had to use vivid imagery. Daniel's visions used similar imagery to describe the rise and fall of various ancient empires; they were not literal beings at all. It is important to understand the historical context in which the book and all prophecy books are written.

It would be nearly impossible for Iran to smuggle a nuke into Israel. You say that the US has a large military buildup in Iraq and Turkey; those are 2 countries Iran shares an eastern border with and would have to go through if they were to smuggle a nuke on the ground. They don't share a border with Syria. Also don't forget how many ships we and other Western nations have in the Persian Gulf looking for weapons smuggled on tanker ships (we just completed an exercise that regarded this very scenario a few days ago). So it would be hard (almost impossible, in fact) for them to go around the Arabian Peninsula with one too. Besides, I think Iran won't attack Israel in the short-term anyway. They're crazy, but not stupid :)

Also check out this article from the Council on Foreign Relations. It says that the Arab World has "mixed opinions" about Iran going nuclear, but they are specifically worried about:

• spreading conflict in the region that is not in their best interests (Israel/US vs. Iran)
• rising Shiite (minority group but vast majority in Iran) influence
• rising Iranian supremacy in the region (political, economic, and cultural threat to Arabs)
• lack of nuclear safety
• economic threats (sanctions affecting oil output/revenue)

The article also says that Hamas and Hezbollah and other radical elements support Iran in going nuclear; wow, what a surprise. However, I think this quote says a lot from an Arab political analyst: "No country in the Arab world will shed any tears over Tehran's spilled nuclear facilities." This also is a big statement: Arab nations have signed bilateral defense agreements with the US to keep (yes, keep) the US in the Persian Gulf as a hedge against Iranian threats. "A major concern for these states is that the U.S. military may decide to pull out entirely, leaving these states vulnerable to a rising Iran." Imagine that, some of them actually want us there! But they cannot speak with any sort of clout on this because they cannot be seen has overtly supporting US policy because that would be "political suicide" for them because we are so unpopular in the Middle East. A powerful Iran is simply not in the best interests of countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Egypt.

However, this article is more worrisome and sure gives the dispensationalists fuel for their theories. Keep in mind that a mutual business interest is one thing; an all-out invasion of Israel is quite another. Clinevol98 18:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably give a more detailed reply later, but for now, I thought you might be interested in this piece of news: Homestarmy 19:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

At this stage, that appears to be all talk. Sure, they may be willing to sell weapons, but did you notice how the article never stated what countries were interested in potentially receiving them? They were only "ready" to supply air defense systems to Lebanon and the article never said anything about which countries wanted them.

Also, I e-mailed Lionel Beehner, the guy who wrote the articles on Arab views of a nuclear Iran and "Russia & Iran: Brothers in Arms." He seems very qualified; he holds a master's degree in international relations from Columbia University. So this isn't raptureready.com message board chatter. Here is what he had to say:

"Thanks for your email Matt. I wouldn't be all that concerned. Russia does not want a nuclear Iran anymore than we do but disagress with the EU-3 and us on how to thwart Iran from going nuclear. True, its interests at Bushehr seem to trump its anti-nuclear rhetoric, given the financial stakes there (other nuclear projects are in the works, I read). But I think it might be willing to tamp down its arms sales, which in the larger scheme of things, is pretty small potatos (compared to what it sells India and China for instance)."

" I'm not convinced Russia is selling Iran nuclear know-how or that Bushehr is having much impact on the ten-year timeline of when Iran would become nuclear capable (note: the israelis point to a three-year timeline). To my knowledge, they (the RUssians, that is) are enriching the uranium, not the Iranians. THey've offered to enrich uranium on a limited basis for other plants as well, but that plan was rejected. Remember, this is difficult stuff we're talking about. They've only begun their second cascade and progress on the first went slower then many expected.

On the issue of alliances, I think the Iranians are very distrustful of the Russians and will never form any meaningful alliance with them that could threaten US interests. Larger, multilateral alliances may take shape (keep an eye out for the Shanghai Cooperation Org, which has made overtures to Iran in the past to join) but their remains a large amount of enmity b/t Russia and Iran that is part cultural, part historical.

That said, I'm no way insinuating Russia will come around and support a UN resolution that targets Iran's oil sector. Nobody I talk to says that's in the offing."

Not looking too good for the dispensational theories, eh? Clinevol98 22:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, I guess I forgot about this for awhile heh. I gotta say, personally, i'm not really amazingly dedicated to current dispensational theories, because I prefer to concentrate on more important things, such as evangelism. Evangelism doesn't really often deal with end times theology :/. Dispensational theories are indeed kind of crazy sometimes, but I notice alot that it depends on who you read about as to which particular theories they try to concentrate on, so I don't much spend alot of time trying to memorize them all. Many of the overall theories they seem to propose seem somewhat reasonable, after all, most Middle Eastern countries do hate Israel and have hated anyone who controls Israel when it isn't them, so I think its highly likely that when the rapture is near, that the Middle East will probably be attacking Israel in some form or another. But as for specifics, like attacks coming from Russia, I don't really care so much about those, their interesting to me to listen to, but I don't think that its the only possible way everything's gonna go down. However, why would Iran and Russia need to be allies for Israel to be attacked? Russia, as with most European countries, is rapidly becoming more and more demographically Muslim, and the rebels in Chechyna aren't really political rebels, their pretty much all Islamic radical rebels. I think its highly possible that Russia simply won't be Russia before long, so they probably won't attack Israel technically :/. Homestarmy 18:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right not to be worried about Russia invading Israel, because it is not prophesied in the Bible and it is unlikely to happen at this time. You are also correct to be more concerned with evangelism and fulfilling the Great Commission. The problem I have with people like Hagee, Jack Van Impe, and Hal Lindsey is that they spend virtually all their time talking about the "end times." They really aren't evangelizing anyone. If anything, they're spreading fear (at least that's what they did to me).

What shocks me even more is the fact that these supposed "prophecy experts" still have credibility in Christian circles. Hal Lindsey predicted that Russia would invade Israel in the 1980s and Jesus should return by 1988, since that was a generation after Israel was reborn. He then predicted that the Battle of Armageddon would take place in 2000.

Van Impe predicted that the Y2K bug would usher in a period of global chaos and by 2001 the "Antichrist" should be here. Given that, he should have absolutely no credibility, correct? Wrong. Even before that, he set several dates for the "rapture." If I remember correctly, he mentioned 2003, 2004, 2007, 2012, and 2018 as possible dates for the "rapture." Now he claims to not know the exact date of the Second Coming but says that is definitely coming soon. After he spews this crap from his mouth, he and Lindsey still have TV shows, write books, and have a large following of people who eat out of their hands.

Israel has been and always will be attacked by their neighbors. That struggle will continue for eons and will only probably end at the end of history. The latest war in the Middle East isn't a sign that the "rapture" is near. Since you asked, Russia and Iran have to be allied for an invasion because the dispensationals think that that's what Ezekiel 38 says.

Also keep in mind that Hagee claims to have the ear of government officials in the US and Israel. These theories are dangerous if foreign policies are constructed around them, which was my point from the very beginning. Clinevol98 05:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have references for those, I think they could (and should) be added to Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians. (Yes, I know the article name is weird, its a long story). But i've never heard Hagee say that he has the ear of anyone, that's news to me.... Homestarmy 13:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have references for the Van Impe predictions, but I do clearly remember him saying them in the years before the year 2000. However, I can prove that Van Impe made a video called "2000 Time Bomb" . An argument can be made that Hagee is a date-setter too, because he frequently says that this generation is the "terminal generation;" the generation that will see the "rapture."

And yes, I know what you mean by the "Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians" article. While everything in it is true and an article like that does need to exist, it does seem biased against Christianity. There probably needs to be one huge article with unfulfilled predictions by religious figures in general. A list such as this would still mostly be bad predictions from Christians though, because it's mostly dispensational premillennialists in Christian circles making the predictions that blow up in their faces.

As for Hagee, he claims to have "high level US and Israeli sources" giving him information in his book Jerusalem Countdown (I haven't read the book and don't want to, but check the amazon.com reviews of the book). Also, read this article . Clinevol98 21:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to improve that article, but since the name change, I just don't see much promise for it, the purpose is only defined by consensus of editors now. (Plus, there's self-references in the intro, that's ordinarily a no-no, but with this title, there's not much choice) There was some discussion about having one big "Religious predictions" article, but due to western bias, i'm concerned most of the content will still be from Christianity, and I think that would send an implicitly negative message :/. But as for him merely having sources, how does that show he has high level influence? Homestarmy 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, think about it; evangelical Christians are the base of the Republican Party. Ken Mehlman and Oliver North have attended his "A Night to Honor Israel" crusades. Hagee also claims to speak with Benjamin Netanyahu. He may not necessarily "influence" these people per se, but he definitely has the ability to get in touch with them. Again, this just further proves that Hagee does not focus on evangelism. He's trying make it seem like he is some foreign policy expert when he has absolutely no training or experience in this field. He's too busy getting in touch with his "unidentified Israeli sources" to write books over preaching the Gospel.

Just read this article I found which is written by Hagee . In it he claims that Iran will hit "New York City and Wall Street, London, and Jerusalem" with nuclear missiles when Iran won't have a nuclear bomb for at least another 4 years. Iran also doesn't have missiles to hit the United States. North Korea doesn't either for that matter. The man is spreading fear whether he's trying to or not. If he has such "expert" sources, he shouldn't be saying these things.

In addition, his "source" claims that Iran could have a bomb within 2 years, which is contrary to pretty much all other reports. People forget that Iran needs to enrich uranium to around 95% for it to be weapons-grade, and the latest reports show that they have only crudely enriched it to around 5%. They also need tens of thousands of centrifuges at many nuclear plants to do the enriching; at last count they only have a few hundred. Also, why should we assume that Iran will perfectly execute every step to building the bomb? In that e-mail I posted from the CFR guy, he said that Iran had problems with their "second cascade;" something to do with uranium enrichment. They'll have problems along the way most likely, so it might take longer than four years (I've heard some estimates say 2015). This isn't downplaying a threat, because Iran is a threat, but these are the facts. I don't believe that Hagee has ever heard the word "brinkmanship."

His "source" also told him in that article that Israel would attack Iran between April and September of 2006. Incorrect. So Hagee or his "source" shouldn't have much credibility. Clinevol98 23:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations on Luther Page

Dear Homes:

A discussion is underway between me and a newcomer who is undoing a lot of my work on the notes in this article. Would you weigh in? Thanks! --CTSWyneken 17:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

He's done a bunch, most of little consequence. What I object to is taking all references, wherever they are in the page, and wrapping them up all into one note. (all the notes with a,b,c,d,e,f, etc. prefix subscripts). He also split references to two or more sources into two or more <ref> tags. So, now, if you work through the notes section, many of the footnotes are out of order. In addition, there is no easy way to move blocks of texts to new pages. You have to stop, comb the whole article looking for the text of the notes and cut-and-pasting each one over to the new page. That will slow down the revision campaign. On splitting the notes, besides not being standard, extra, unneeded lines are added to the article. --CTSWyneken 23:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

User:ParadoxTom

Could you please talk to him? He's much more likely to listen to you than to me and he seems to be self-destructing. JoshuaZ 06:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And he just went over WP:3RR on the article again. I really think he could be a productive editor if he was more cooperative. JoshuaZ 06:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the general template. I won't object if you or another editor other than Paradox feels that the neutrality is disputed enough to justify the templare. It might be reasonable to see if he would be willing to be unblocked under the conditions that he not edit the J4J mainpage. JoshuaZ 21:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

You the only guy on the GA review page? You seem to be fighting a lonely battle, my hats off to you (even though I don't own one). LuciferMorgan 21:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If criterion 2. b. of GA is disputed, I suggest the Science editors motion for a change in the criteria. Right now it's there in black and white - FAs are delisted based on criteria shortcomings, so GA shouldn't be different. Also, all articles with zero cites were warned beforehand to sort things out.

Besides, if they feel the delisting is unfair they can opt for a review, and have sufficient reasons why it shouldn't have been delisted. The word "required" in the criteria makes their case collapse like a stack of cards. Those with few cites I'll just nominate for review. LuciferMorgan 01:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Good Articles" question

Hiya,

You seem to have been around the GA process for a while. I wanna ask a question, but am afraid of starting a foodfight if I ask on the project talk page.

I'm just looking at the most recent GA, New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway. The only reason I'm discussing that article is simply because, at the time I had these questions, that was the most recent GA.

If I were reviewing it, I would look down at the notes section, see a total of 7 notes, and think "'Next!'". No way would I accept that level of skimpiness with respect to verifiability. I get the coypvio shudders when I see only 7 notes in the middle of a large number of factual assertions. I would not even need to read the rest of the article to know it was a GA reject. I mean, look at this:

The New Jersey Western was the most profitable of the roads and, led by Cornelius Wortendyke, began operating at Hawthorne in 1869. Later that year, Wortendyke signed an agreement with Dewitt Littlejohn to give the NY&OM trackage rights over the NJW to reach New York City. This agreement was pivotal, as the two roads would soon see themselves merged in 1870 to form the New Jersey Midland Railway (NJM)

In my mind, this article needs should contain far more {{fact}} tags than it has photos.

I would reject it despite its nice maps and photos. Nice maps and photos are the least of my concerns (tho having at least 1 is kinda required, if I read WP:WIAGA correctly.. but I'm surprised WP:WIAGA makes no mention of infoboxes!).

Would I be in the wrong?

Thanks --Ling.Nut 00:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

GA question#2

HI again,

Anyone can list anything! There are no checks at all, unless someone just happens to get around to it. That's true for inexperienced reviewers; it's true for counterfeits ("bogies").

Am I out of line for wondering about this?

I'm walking in and commenting on a process that has existed for a while, I know...

. --Ling.Nut 02:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

sarcasm and JesusFreak

Heh, I was wondering how folks who know me would respond to that post. Basically, if I want to explain POV to a home-schooled "Jesus Freak," I want to put it in terms that he will understand. Another editor posted a response that amounted to a challenge, but why be confrontational? I want to make NPOV make sense even to someone who thinks that their beliefs are the truth, not POV. I wrote it with irony, but not sarcasm. I was really trying to get to the NPOV idea from JesusFreak's viewpoint. Jonathan Tweet 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Electron Beam Welding

I've responded on the talk page. Thanks! --Spangineer (háblame) 16:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of laser beam welding? Do you think that meets the requirements of GA? Granted, there isn't much on how it's used, but there's at least a line about it in the lead. --Spangineer (háblame) 06:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You'd need to make a pretty convincing case that the two general references at the bottom cover most of the text, but I personally think it borderline is broad enough. However, people more familiar with welding may spot something else missing. Homestarmy 19:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila: would appreciate your opnion

Hi Homestarmy,

Is that "home state army?"

Anyhow, if you have a moment, I'd appreciate it if you could look at Jogaila and especially at the discussion of its GA at the bottom of its talk page. It's a bit of an unusual case, in that although there is ongoing bickering over spelling issues, the bickering seems not to affect the article...

Thanks, --Ling.Nut 22:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

GA review

Is it common practice to delist an article by review without notification? Most users don't keep Misplaced Pages:Good articles/Review on their watchlist, after all. Just wondering. – ClockworkSoul 14:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is that rule posted, because it's not being followed on most articles that are being considered for GA-delisting. – ClockworkSoul 15:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I really should try to get more sleep: my level of comprehension has been way down lately. Thanks, though! :) – ClockworkSoul 22:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if I was a short with you: I unfairly took my bad week out on you. It won't happen again. – ClockworkSoul 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

feeling a little cranky

Forgive me for doing a core dump... but...

I wanted to stop being a total metawikipedian around WP:GA/R, and go actually review some more articles. So I went to look.

I...it's difficult to say. I want to keep impartiality. But I am feeling cranky.

I have spent.. I haven't looked at the history.. but hours upon hours upon hours on the page I submitted (which first got me interested in this process). In my admittedly biased opinion, it is a very important topic.

The article still has warts; it might not make GA. I wouldn't be surprised or hurt at all if it didn't. In fact, I would be faintly surprised if it passed.

Among the nominees I looked at today: one of the articles took less than 2 days to write, start to finish. And I think it might just be GA.

Another.. the topic is.... And I think it might be GA.

Yet I know... I know, if I ever even mention the N-word (that would be "notability".. stop letting your imagination fill in the blanks) I will instantly become a hated heathen, an Outcast Unclean. I have been there before!

Around GA/R, what is the status of the N-word-that-may-not-be-spoken?

I'm sure you've read this: User:Worldtraveller.

Later, --Ling.Nut 04:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

late reply

Hi Homestarmy,

Yeah, I definitely hear what you're saying about the GA page, and about working on other projects. Maintaining a balanced perspective is important. :-)

I may be pretty light on contribs for a couple weeks starting now, but I plan to hang out on GA from now on.. just in moderation. :-) If you need help with any of the administrative-type tasks you mentioned, give me a holler any time (but that offer starts after mid-December or so. busy now.. sorry).

later! --Ling.Nut 15:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Latin Alphabet

I should point out that it does fail WP:WIAGA criteria 1c as I mentioned on the article's talk page. I know they are small problems but I should point out that when the problems are fixed the article can always be renominated at WP:GAN. Tarret 02:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well lets leave that up to the articles editors. If they ask to put it back on the list I guess we can, after all the editor is always right. Tarret 02:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns at Agrippina

Fixed. Moreschi 22:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There should indeed. Thanks for picking that up. Best, Moreschi 22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! At last someone tells me a few things that are wrong. Brilliant! All of that's pretty easy, I'll go and fix it now. Cheers, Moreschi 22:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

HAH! Your puny list is no match for my awesome CITING powers!!! Anything else you want doing? Cheers, Moreschi 22:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (with apologies for plagiarizing the wit of Adam Cuerden)

Well, i'm about to have dinner, so I might not be able to look at it again for a bit, but maybe someone else can just read down the article and find a few things. Homestarmy 23:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Good articles/Candidates

My thought was that the sentence "You cannot choose an article if you have made significant contributions to it." is in the instructions (nr 2) :-)

Fred-Chess 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Agrippina (opera)

Hi Homey,

Can I ask you to explicitly vote (or repeat your vote, if you have already voted in the long discussion) on Agrippina (opera)? It has been the subject of extended discussion, and deserves closure.

Thanks --Ling.Nut 15:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks once again for your comments, which I think have been addressed. Thank you. Cheers, Moreschi 10:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, do you feel able to vote conclusively or not? Thanks for all the help. Best, Moreschi 20:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I don't like to vote on articles which seem to me borderline in terms of references, but the debate is still going on, i've asked a few other GA people to maybe take a look at the conversation. I think i'd rather wait to make a statement one way or the other for now. Homestarmy 20:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you. BTW, Folantin added several cites from Viking earlier today. Best, Moreschi 20:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry to be a pest...

You may also wanna see Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Candidates#lotsa_undiscussed_editing_of_the_project_page.._many_people_may_want_to_have_a_say.

• --Ling.Nut 17:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Claude Nicolas Ledoux

Re: Claude Nicolas Ledoux.

I left a message on Folantin's talk page saying that he would be a more appropriate person to review this article, since the person who responded on the article's talk page seems to share his (Folantin's) views of GA.

If Folantin doesn't pick this up in two days or so, would you mind doing it? But let Folantin have the first crack; I asked him first.

Thanks --Ling.Nut 00:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Claude Nicolas Ledoux. Would you please review Claude Nicolas Ledoux, or find reviewers?--Ling.Nut 11:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

yes i did send an email..

It takes a somewhat strong position. If you don't get it in a day or two (subject: "Because it gives me satisfaction to think I'm helping the encyclopedia") then drop a line on my talk page. :-)

Cheers!--Ling.Nut 21:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)